Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (57466)	11/17/2002 12:43:21 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Brumar89; Re: "This line of reasoning could be used to support a policy of never retaliating against terror attacks." No, what that line of reasoning supports is a policy of not making retaliation against innocent civilians. By the way, in addition to being US military policy for anti-guerilla operations, that is also mandated by the Geneva Convention. If you get attacked by guerillas, you have to find the guerillas. That could be a hell of a lot more difficult than simply taking revenge on civilians, but the historical record is that reprisals against civilians are ineffective unless pursued at levels far, far, far in excess of what Israel has done so far. Examples of successful reprisals against civilians would be the actions of the Nazis in occupied Europe, or the Russians in occupied Germany, for that matter. These kinds of activities by Israel (i.e. forcing populations to move, taking captives and executing them in mass, complete destruction of villages, etc.) would result in the US ceasing its veto of UN resolutions calling for sanctions against Israel, and that would quickly destroy the Israeli state. Reprisals are not a rational choice for Israel. Since finding the guerillas is essentially impossible, Israel's correct action is to take the punches and react by making life better for the Palestinian population. I don't think that that is politically possible for the Israelis. If a liberal government is elected that does pursue such a plan, all they will do is seal their fate at the next election. It's impossible to please all the Palestinians, so there will always be a certain level of terrorism. Since the action of modern media is to make a big deal out of everything, this will whip up sentiment in Israel in favor of reprisals. Reprisals are not a rational choice for Israel, but they are an emotional choice. And that is the choice that they will make. Israel is stuck in a cycle of violence and there is no way in hell they can escape. -- Carl

To: Brumar89 who wrote (57466)	11/19/2002 1:16:41 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I wrote: We should always remember, when discussing military response, the time-honored terrorist progression. The terrorists attack, expecting and intending to generate a military response. They then disperse their assets among a civilian population, ensuring that the military response will involve collateral damage. They then use that collateral damage to recruit more terrorists and to stir up world opinion against the attacking power. They repeat the process until the patience of the attacking power is worn down. You wrote: This line of reasoning could be used to support a policy of never retaliating against terror attacks. I'm sure that's not what you're supporting though. It couldn’t be used that way very effectively. It is not meant to suggest that retaliation is inappropriate, only that we must plan our retaliation to serve our purposes and not those of our enemies. We know what our enemies want us to do. They want us to get angry and frustrated and lash out with massive force at a small mobile target concealed within a civilian population. This is retaliation that allows them to turn our own force back against us. We know this trap too well, there’s no reason to walk into it. I think we were right to demand the Afghan government hand over the leadership of Al Qaida and use military force against them when they refused. Even though there was some unintentional collateral damage. I agree. The terrorists broke a primary rule of guerilla warfare by congregating and taking open control of a vulnerable area. They presented us with a target of opportunity that could be attacked with very limited collateral damage and very limited opportunity for propaganda exploitation. We’d have been foolish not to take that one. I did not, fairly obviously, oppose the Afghan operation, though I did think it important that US forces maintain the lowest possible profile during the occupation/reconstruction phase, which should be conducted as much as possible by allies.