So the fact that we have superior firepower somehow justifies the use of civilians as unwilling human shields?
It's called guerilla warfare. It's been a standard tactic of a weaker defending army, since guns were invented... militia have always been from and concealed within the civilian population, and mixed among them will be trained pro or emi-pro soldiers. You don't need many to make things very nasty for anything but the most brutal invading army... ask the Nazi's in France, or indeed the British in NI.
I suppose you could call it 'human shields' but that weakens a term better applied to the deliberate siting of (ideally our) civilians on or around what would otherwise be bombing targets.
You may not like the idea of guerilla war, as a Brit I loathe what we saw in NI... but it's there, and it's standard, and if its the only way to fight an invader, it'll be used.
If it were my country being invaded, unless I really, truly loathed my national rulers and my country I'd do all I could to stop the invaders. And if they were hugely better armed, with total air control, the ability to bomb where they liked, at will... I'd see no shame in using what weapons I had, as best I could.
Be honest... would you?
The scary part is that all our planners seem to have missed this.
<edit> or maybe they didn't, they just discounted it?
Message 18762916 |
