The Oriflamme (from Latin aurea flamma, "golden flame"), a pointed, blood-red banner flown from a gilded lance, was the sacred battle standard of the King of France and a symbol of divine intervention on the battlefield from God and Saint Denis in the Middle Ages. The oriflamme originated as the sacred banner of the Abbey of St. Denis, a monastery near Paris. When the oriflamme was raised in battle by the French royalty during the Middle Ages, most notably during the Hundred Years' War, no prisoners were to be taken until it was lowered. Through that tactic, they hoped to strike fear into the hearts of the enemy, especially the nobles, who could usually expect to be taken alive for ransom during such military encounters.
One of the greatest knights of the Hundred Years War died with the Oriflamme in his hands.
Froissart vividly describes porte-oriflamme Geoffroi de Charny's fall at the side of his king at the Battle of Poitiers in this passage:
There Sir Geoffroi de Charny fought gallantly near the king (note: and his fourteen-year-old son). The whole press and cry of battle were upon him because he was carrying the king’s sovereign banner [the Oriflamme]. He also had before him his own banner, gules, three escutcheons argent. So many English and Gascons came around him from all sides that they cracked open the king’s battle formation and smashed it; there were so many English and Gascons that at least five of these men at arms attacked one [French] gentleman. Sir Geoffroi de Charny was killed with the banner of France in his hand, as other French banners fell to earth.
Both of these red banners are supposed to have been sacred, but the idea has a purely profane variation in history. Pirates famously raised a black flag, including the "Jolly Roger," to indicate piratical intentions -- but it also promised quarter if a surrender was given at once. There was a red flag, "the bloody flag," that some would raise to signal that they intended to murder their prey without mercy no matter what.
Coincidentally I was wearing a t-shirt with this flag printed on it during my flight experiences. Sadly, in spite of my massive black beard, no one got the reference.
.svg.png)
I'm having trouble seeing what Israel would gain from killing the target in Iran. That man was a relative moderate, looking for a way to a cease fire, however poor his terms might have been (I have no idea of his proposals). He'll likely be replaced by a more hawkish individual.
ReplyDeleteA more likely scenario, IMNSHO, is that he was spiked by a Hamas/Hezbollah actor to set up Israel for the opprobrium, coming as it does on the heels of Israel's execution of a terrorist leader in Beirut. Of course, I have no hard data to support this scenario, either.
Eric Hines
That man was a relative moderate, looking for a way to a cease fire, however poor his terms might have been.
ReplyDeleteThe goal of Hamas is the destruction of the state of Israel. Nothing "relatively moderate" about that.
It reminds me of the scene in Lonesome Dove wherein they hang an old friend they found riding with people who’d been murdering and plundering and burning people’s bodies. He pled that he had not killed anyone and just needed company tough enough to get across the Territory. They hung him anyway, for going along with the murders.
DeleteOnly this guy wasn’t just riding along. He was one of the leaders. As Gringo points out, a “relative moderate” in the context of Hamas is stretching relativity a long way.
Ismail Haniyeh headed the political wing of Hamas. While the political wing deals with negotiations, and the military/operations wing deals with bombs, tunnels, rockets etc., that doesn't mean that the political wing is any more "moderate" than the military/operations wing. Ismail Haniyeh's use of political means didn't at all mean that he was opposed to the military/operations of Hamas. The political and military/operations wings were just different methods for achieving one goal: the destruction of the state of Israel.
ReplyDeleteNot moderate enough for us doesn't matter. Too moderate for the rest of Hamas, might matter. In either event, his death means his replacement will be even more hawkish, whether Israel did him or Hamas did him for being too soft or they did him just to set up Israel.
ReplyDeleteEric Hines
... that doesn't mean that the political wing is any more "moderate" than the military/operations wing. Ismail Haniyeh's use of political means didn't at all mean that he was opposed to the military/operations of Hamas.
ReplyDeleteYes, von Clausewitz: the difference between politics and war is merely a question of means. The ends seem to be exactly the same.
In either event, his death means his replacement will be even more hawkish...
ReplyDeleteThat also depends on Clausewitz's point. Was the 'moderation' for us, or for them? If politik and war are aligned here, as Clausewitz said they would be, the show of moderation (in English) is just part of the act intended to create the desired effect. It is just another means of seeking the end.
All of these guys are tied at the hip to the Supreme Leader of Iran. I don't think you'll find a 'moderate' among them, although we are often told that Iranian elections are between 'moderates' and 'hardliners.' It is also I think just an act, more for the sake of those with whom they are at war than as a legitimate internal debate among themselves. In the case of Iran's government, 'those with whom they are at war' includes their own people (as it does, increasingly, with our government and ourselves).
On the subject of the flag, I'd like to raise the point that Blackbeard died in North Carolina. You'd think people would recognize his flag. I'm saddened by the lack of historical currency, at least at the Charlotte airport where I've spent so much of the last day or so.
ReplyDeleteEric Hines
ReplyDeleteThat man was a relative moderate, looking for a way to a cease fire,
How does seeking a cease-fire make him a "relative moderate?" Hamas is getting hammered. Hamas did not anticipate the consequence of the Israeli invasion of Gaza. OF COURSE Hamas wants a cease-fire, but on their terms. You don't think that Sinwar, who is nobody's idea of a moderate, doesn't want to have a cease fire on the terms that Hamas has proposed, so that he can live above ground once again? Rest assured that if Sinwar didn't agree with the proposed cease-fire terms, political wing honcho Ismail Haniyeh would have never proposed them.
In either event, his death means his replacement will be even more hawkish...
How would subsequent Hamas cease-fire proposals be more hawkish than the cease-fire terms that Hamas has already proposed? Roughly speaking, they are: 1)IDF withdraws from Gaza 2) ten-twenty-100 Hamas prisoners in Israeli jails released in exchange for hostages 3)Big delay in releasing hostages, and Hamas says it doesn't know if they are alive or not.
GrimThat also depends on Clausewitz's point. Was the 'moderation' for us, or for them? If politik and war are aligned here, as Clausewitz said they would be, the show of moderation (in English) is just part of the act intended to create the desired effect. It is just another means of seeking the end.
I am reminded of Arafat telling Western audiences that he was all for the two-state solution. When speaking to Arab audiences, Arafat's message was rather different. Arafat told Arab audiences the two-state solution was but a temporary stage towards the ultimate goal: a Palestinian state from the river to the sea. (MEMRI)
Regarding political arm versus operations/military arm, I am reminded of what Che Guevara wrote to Salvador Allende: "To Salvador Allende, who is trying to obtain the same result by other means." Political wing Allende believed that he could win majority support for his programs. Che believed that they could be achieved only by the gun. But they did have the same goal. (Regis Debray, Conversations w Allende) Unfortunately for Allende, he never achieved majority support. Which meant that most of the hundreds of companies he nationalized got that way by legalistic flim-flam and fait accompli. Which the majority did not like. Hence the coup.
Correction: 2) ten-twenty-100 Hamas prisoners in Israeli jails released in exchange for hostages
ReplyDelete2) ten-twenty-100 Hamas prisoners in Israeli jails released in exchange for each hostage released.
Two points: first, what would Israel gain by killing a Hamas leader in Iran? I think that's obvious: to demonstrate that Iran can't protect its flunkies, even inside Iran itself. Like most movements, Hamas contains a contingent of "chicken hawks", happy to instigate other peoples' deaths but not actually willing to suffer for it themselves. Even more chicken hawks exist in the enablers-- money men, smugglers, politicians, etc. that keep the goodies flowing. This will change the calculus for some, maybe many, of those, much more so than killing him in Gaza (where, naturally, he never set foot).
ReplyDeleteSecond, and more interesting to me, is the assumption you make that the replacements will be more radical, and implied more effective/dangerous, than the ones killed. That's a very interesting question-- are the replacements going to be "better" (at winning, = "worse" from the Israeli standpoint)? Because historically, it can go either way. For example, at the start of WW2, the Japanese pilots were better than the US pilots by a significant margin-- the kill ratios were very lopsided in the Japanese favor. But over time, the US managed to replace its killed pilots with better and better pilots, whereas the Japanese pilots got worse and worse. The same was true basically across all theaters and all services-- the US steadily produced better and better ship captains, tank officers, construction engineers, submarine captains, battlefield physicians, EOD technicians, you name it, everywhere in the world, all at once. Whereas the US's enemies got worse in every way. Why was that?
More to the point: in our long experience with the "War on Terror", I would say that the enemies we faced did NOT get better as we killed their leadership. What most people interpret as "stasis" or "nothing changing" ignored the fact that we were drastically reducing the number of troops in theater (by a factor of ~10, before the Obama withdrawl) and, perversely, training and supplying the people who were fighting us (in the false belief that they were "supporting" our efforts). We called it "mowing the grass"... and over time, their leaders got less and less effective. Grim can chime in with his own experience, but that's mine.
A side note: I had to do some online "anti-terrorism" training recently, a residual requirement for DoD contracts. I was struck by how irrelevant it all was: there was a time when terrorist attacks against Americans happened every year, several times a year, multiple places in the world. There was hardly a 6 month period where I didn't see the news and sigh about, oh, I've been through that airport; I've been to that waterfront; I know that unit; etc. But it's been years now since I have heard anything like that. Watching this online class about checking under your car for bombs? We used to have to do that, kids. Now, that's like talking about how people lived in the Great Depression or something. Much to my surprise, I have to say: we won the War on Terror. We spent decades pretending it didn't exist, then another decade or two fighting it in the stupidest way possible... but we won.
--Janet
Coincidentally I was wearing a t-shirt with this flag printed on it during my flight experiences. Sadly, in spite of my massive black beard, no one got the reference.
ReplyDeleteProbably trying not to attract your attention while praying you weren't his reincarnation.
On a related note, Israel's strike in Lebanon took out Fuad Shakr who was one of the planners for the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing and had some role in executing it.
ReplyDeleteYeah, the Israelis are on a roll with their assassins lately.
ReplyDeleteHave we considered the possibility that Israel really meant it when they said they will destroy Hamas, and in the ancient sense? I'm starting to think they do and enough of the people will back it through to the end.
ReplyDeleteI assume they intend to do so. It is, I think, an answer to Hamas' prayer. October 7th was clearly intended as a blood sacrifice to beg for their god to bring about a final reckoning with Israel. They are now receiving it.
ReplyDelete