There's an old saying that "the devil's in the details." While the recent Lebanese war and the various government scandals have been occurring, I noticed an item that seemed to sneak by under the public's radar a few months ago: the Defense Ministry is phasing out production of the Merkava main battle tank.
There were a few comments aired, then the whole issue vanished from the media. Strange, considering the huge investment involved with this tank, but not that unusual. Naturally, the industry involved always complains about jobs being lost, and I can sympathize with that, though I've never thought that weapons systems existed solely for employment. The only real complaint that I'd heard, about vulnerability to the latest anti-tank missiles, doesn't hold much water either. Tanks have always played technological catch-up with tank-killers, while improper tactics can make anything a sitting duck.
But why dump all the money, man-hours and development invested in the Merkava now? The answer lies in the mentality of the regime presently in power and its allies, both within and outside the military.
The red flag is this quote from the September 28, 2006 article on Arutz Sheva's website by Hana Levi Julian:
The real dilemma is how certain citizens and bureaucrats of a particular bent seem to think alike.
Have you ever seen the reaction of someone who has never been around firearms before when they see a gun being handled? I'm talking about the type of person who thinks of a firearm as both a conscious agent of destruction and as a form of political power. This world-view sees a weapon as alive, capable of destroying all by itself without any input from its owner, not as a dumb machine that requires outside thought and intention for its use. The very concept of having such a thing in the house verges on mental illness for these people.
This attitude is fairly new in civilized society. In the recent past, the ability to carry a weapon was a sign that a person had reached full membership in the community, with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities that entailed. Today, a firearm is also a symbol, because a trained weapon-handler openly asserts mastery over his or her immediate environment. It is a signal to all of his self-confidence, so that another's use of violence will not be a means of control over him.
However, to those who think government is the only legal arbiter of force, such a confident and independent person is almost a bigger danger than the gun itself. Ask anyone whose permit has been revoked for no reason other than politics, or who has been jailed for simply defending himself. To be blunt, individual disarmament is ghetto-think at its worst. An armed Jew? Good grief, can't have that! Treblinka? Warsaw? Shut up, serf, and pray you don't get smacked by our riot clubs!
By such reasoning, the tank is a political weapon, not just a killer of other tanks. It wields tremendous power both as a symbol and as a means of conquest. To those who feel the military in general is a danger to "peace," the tank is an almost mythic tool of a warrior society.
Yet, to discard the Merkava is the same type of "disengagement" as was the giving back of land for a delusional hope of peace. Up to this point, any enemy who saw the Merkava in action knew they were facing a nation that fields the best of weaponry and the soldiers qualified to wield them. In future, as these vehicles age and parts-inventories dry up, what choices will the IDF face but to buy more vehicles from those nations who are willing to sell them to Israel (good luck), or simply give up state-of-the-art tanks altogether? What would any armed foe think of a warrior that lays down his best sword? Indeed, what motivates the people who'd put Israel in this position?
It all boils down to the fact that this production-cut is a result of self-hatred rather than tactical considerations, the outgrowth of a fear of individual (and Jewish) independence. By extension, the Merkava is an overt threat to the Arab nations and their "Palestinian" clients as a method of supposed Jewish "oppression," to be negotiated away for the sake of concessions, no matter how imaginary.
Of course, the bean-counters will always want a military on the cheap, but for others, stopping this tank's production is a sinister method of reducing a sovereign Israel to external servitude. Granted, some parts of the Merkava are imported, but to stop producing one of the four pillars of a country's military defense (Infantry, Artillery, Aircraft and Armor) is calling for self-immolation. Further dependence on outside sources for Israel's defense will only bring more insecurity - and these bureaucrats know it.
Have the apparatchiks in the government said any of this openly? No, but such nonsensical thinking has overtaken most of the West's armies since the collapse of the Soviet Union. American troops in Iraq are even now paying the price of "downsizing," lacking proper armored vehicles and taking unnecessary casualties, because of a bureaucratic decision process that originated in the urge to look less "warlike" to a post-Cold-War world.
Call me old-fashioned, nostalgic or just a plain conspiracy nut, but the consequences of such a suicidal policy of "cut-backs" for the IDF and Israel will be quick and tragic if it continues unchallenged.
There were a few comments aired, then the whole issue vanished from the media. Strange, considering the huge investment involved with this tank, but not that unusual. Naturally, the industry involved always complains about jobs being lost, and I can sympathize with that, though I've never thought that weapons systems existed solely for employment. The only real complaint that I'd heard, about vulnerability to the latest anti-tank missiles, doesn't hold much water either. Tanks have always played technological catch-up with tank-killers, while improper tactics can make anything a sitting duck.
But why dump all the money, man-hours and development invested in the Merkava now? The answer lies in the mentality of the regime presently in power and its allies, both within and outside the military.
The red flag is this quote from the September 28, 2006 article on Arutz Sheva's website by Hana Levi Julian:
Defense officials are currently debating whether the tank is still useful altogether in modern-day ground warfare, having been designed primarily for classic tank-on-tank battles. The cost-benefit ratio over the years has been questioned, not only by defense officials, but by others as well.If I had a shekel for every time this particular assertion has been made, I'd be able to buy out The Donald's shares in Trump Tower. Well, maybe a bathroom faucet handle or two. But the fact remains that there hasn't been a conflict since the invention of tanks that hasn't seen them needed on the battlefield. Authors like Ralph Zumbro and John Keegan have documented the absolutely critical need for heavy armor from ancient Megiddo to modern Baghdad, so I won't beat a dead Humvee by going over the history again.
The real dilemma is how certain citizens and bureaucrats of a particular bent seem to think alike.
Have you ever seen the reaction of someone who has never been around firearms before when they see a gun being handled? I'm talking about the type of person who thinks of a firearm as both a conscious agent of destruction and as a form of political power. This world-view sees a weapon as alive, capable of destroying all by itself without any input from its owner, not as a dumb machine that requires outside thought and intention for its use. The very concept of having such a thing in the house verges on mental illness for these people.
This attitude is fairly new in civilized society. In the recent past, the ability to carry a weapon was a sign that a person had reached full membership in the community, with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities that entailed. Today, a firearm is also a symbol, because a trained weapon-handler openly asserts mastery over his or her immediate environment. It is a signal to all of his self-confidence, so that another's use of violence will not be a means of control over him.
However, to those who think government is the only legal arbiter of force, such a confident and independent person is almost a bigger danger than the gun itself. Ask anyone whose permit has been revoked for no reason other than politics, or who has been jailed for simply defending himself. To be blunt, individual disarmament is ghetto-think at its worst. An armed Jew? Good grief, can't have that! Treblinka? Warsaw? Shut up, serf, and pray you don't get smacked by our riot clubs!
By such reasoning, the tank is a political weapon, not just a killer of other tanks. It wields tremendous power both as a symbol and as a means of conquest. To those who feel the military in general is a danger to "peace," the tank is an almost mythic tool of a warrior society.
Yet, to discard the Merkava is the same type of "disengagement" as was the giving back of land for a delusional hope of peace. Up to this point, any enemy who saw the Merkava in action knew they were facing a nation that fields the best of weaponry and the soldiers qualified to wield them. In future, as these vehicles age and parts-inventories dry up, what choices will the IDF face but to buy more vehicles from those nations who are willing to sell them to Israel (good luck), or simply give up state-of-the-art tanks altogether? What would any armed foe think of a warrior that lays down his best sword? Indeed, what motivates the people who'd put Israel in this position?
It all boils down to the fact that this production-cut is a result of self-hatred rather than tactical considerations, the outgrowth of a fear of individual (and Jewish) independence. By extension, the Merkava is an overt threat to the Arab nations and their "Palestinian" clients as a method of supposed Jewish "oppression," to be negotiated away for the sake of concessions, no matter how imaginary.
Of course, the bean-counters will always want a military on the cheap, but for others, stopping this tank's production is a sinister method of reducing a sovereign Israel to external servitude. Granted, some parts of the Merkava are imported, but to stop producing one of the four pillars of a country's military defense (Infantry, Artillery, Aircraft and Armor) is calling for self-immolation. Further dependence on outside sources for Israel's defense will only bring more insecurity - and these bureaucrats know it.
Have the apparatchiks in the government said any of this openly? No, but such nonsensical thinking has overtaken most of the West's armies since the collapse of the Soviet Union. American troops in Iraq are even now paying the price of "downsizing," lacking proper armored vehicles and taking unnecessary casualties, because of a bureaucratic decision process that originated in the urge to look less "warlike" to a post-Cold-War world.
Call me old-fashioned, nostalgic or just a plain conspiracy nut, but the consequences of such a suicidal policy of "cut-backs" for the IDF and Israel will be quick and tragic if it continues unchallenged.