SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Bilow who wrote (111553)8/15/2003 1:27:23 AM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Only strong states can use "strong" collective punishment to mend the ways of recalcitrant foreign nations

so basically you're saying that Israel's mistake was in not leveling Jenin with heavy artillery?



To: Bilow who wrote (111553)8/15/2003 9:48:58 AM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
The calculation is much more complex than "collective punishment". Most states will abandon their war aims if they finally perceive them to be unachievable, or if the cost is unacceptable, even if they are not getting beaten much. That is why there is a good chance that capturing Saddam would cause some of the hostile activity in Iraq to abate: once restoring the regime is hopeless, many supporters will give up. There is only a finite number of people fanatical enough to persist with suicidal tactics, and, of course, each explosion reduces the number, so waging a war of attrition against terrorists can work in the long run. People can change their views: Hitler enjoyed popularity when it looked as if he were a man of destiny. As he made stupid decisions and mired Germany in further jeopardy, people became disenchanted and defeatist, and even the officer corps started hatching plots to assassinate him. In general, it is not just who can pummel whom the most, but the whole calculus of costs and benefits, and questions like morale, that determine the outcome.........