Is it possible to conduct a war on terrorists without sheer overwhelming force?

[an anarchist]

I hope this thread does not come across as shallow. I hope I am asking a useful question (I did put thought into it).

Is it possible to conduct a war on a terror group, such as Hamas, successfully?

If we think back to WW2, overwhelming force and even targeting civilian infrastructure in Germany was what defeated the Nazis. Sheer overwhelming force.

Theoretically, Israel could defeat Hamas rather easily I think. Just flatten the entirety of Gaza until there are no more left. Or something of the sort. Of course, no one here wants that (hopefully). And the international community would hopefully not allow it.

But what is presently being done? A militant will be amongst civilians, and they all get bombed. Pretty obvious that just creates more terrorists. A Hamas leader is killed and what happens? Like a hydra, another head takes their place. So this half measure between sheer overwhelming force and diplomacy seems to be ineffective and even counterproductive.

So, if we refuse to accept the complete destruction of Gaza in pursuit of the destruction of Hamas, and if we realize that the half measures being done presently are counterproductive, does that not only leave diplomacy? Sheer diplomacy.

What would diplomacy would like between Israel and Hamas? Is that even possible?

Or am I wrong? Is there a way through warfare to solve the issue? (Options besides the complete annihilation of Gaza).

 

[icehorse]

Good OP.

I think the UN needs to step in and take over the elimination of Hamas in Gaza. A large force could do a slow, thorough sweep of Gaza, which would protect civilians and ferret out Hamas.

And further, I think the UN is mostly responsible for this mess, so it would be good for them to fix it.

 

[an anarchist]

I think the UN needs to step in and take over the elimination of Hamas in Gaza. A large force could do a slow, thorough sweep of Gaza, which would protect civilians and ferret out Hamas.

I think that’s an interesting idea. I’m no military tactician though, just someone who has an interest in military tactics in general.

UN forces would face casualties, sure, but it’s better that way, no? Rather than just bombing Hamas+Civilians, the UN soldiers go there on foot and fight it out. It’d be best case scenario for the civilians perhaps. But perhaps not. I think it’d be hard for anyone to say. One can point to the recent USA endeavors in Afghanistan and Iraq and say it wouldn’t work.

I remember when I was a teenager in the Border Patrol training program, we were in a class one day. They said “Active shooting scenario. You got 3 groups of people. You have 1. The shooter 2. Civilians 3. Yourself and other officers. In which order do you prioritize lives?”

I raised my hand because I thought it was obvious. I said “The civilians lives come first, then the officers lives come second.” And I was wrong! They told me “No! Officer lives always comes before civilian lives.” This was a Border Patrol Agent giving official training.

So I wonder if that same line of thinking is present in armed forces, such as the UN peacekeeping force. They value soldier lives over civilians, when honestly it should be the other way around.

 

[icehorse]

Yeah... I wonder how Gazan civilians would behave in such a scenario? They might behave quite differently.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The British army fought a war against the IRA, as well as Loyalist terrorist groups like the UVF and the UDA, which lasted for three decades. If the UK government had even considered using the brutal and indiscriminanent methods the IDF are currently undertaking against the civilian population in Gaza, the US government would have brought enormous pressutre to bear immediately.

Eventually all parties in Northern Ireland got sick of the violence, but that might never have happened if, for example, the British Army had razed West Belfast and Derry to the ground.

 

[Stevicus]

I hope this thread does not come across as shallow. I hope I am asking a useful question (I did put thought into it).

Is it possible to conduct a war on a terror group, such as Hamas, successfully?

If we think back to WW2, overwhelming force and even targeting civilian infrastructure in Germany was what defeated the Nazis. Sheer overwhelming force.

Theoretically, Israel could defeat Hamas rather easily I think. Just flatten the entirety of Gaza until there are no more left. Or something of the sort. Of course, no one here wants that (hopefully). And the international community would hopefully not allow it.

But what is presently being done? A militant will be amongst civilians, and they all get bombed. Pretty obvious that just creates more terrorists. A Hamas leader is killed and what happens? Like a hydra, another head takes their place. So this half measure between sheer overwhelming force and diplomacy seems to be ineffective and even counterproductive.

So, if we refuse to accept the complete destruction of Gaza in pursuit of the destruction of Hamas, and if we realize that the half measures being done presently are counterproductive, does that not only leave diplomacy? Sheer diplomacy.

What would diplomacy would like between Israel and Hamas? Is that even possible?

Or am I wrong? Is there a way through warfare to solve the issue? (Options besides the complete annihilation of Gaza).

I remember a Sheriff's deputy I once knew showed me a t-shirt that he wore:

I've known quite a few who believe in overwhelming force, saying "kill 'em all" or "bomb 'em back to the Stone Age."

MacArthur wanted to use nukes in the Korean War, and some thought we should have just dropped the bomb on North Vietnam. Some people even advocated nuking Iran over the hostage crisis.

The reasoning is similar to WW2, where massive overwhelming bombardment of cities was instrumental in bringing about their capitulation. But even that's not necessarily enough, as you still need boots on the ground. One problem is that with terrorists, you're essentially dealing with underground revolutionaries and resistance fighters who don't wear uniforms and oftentimes can't be distinguished from the civilian population. That seems to be a problem if the civilians are sympathetic and helping to shelter the terrorists. Then they become targets themselves.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What would diplomacy would like between Israel and Hamas? Is that even possible?

Or am I wrong? Is there a way through warfare to solve the issue? (Options besides the complete annihilation of Gaza).

Israel doesn't need to engage in diplomacy with Hamas. They could acknowledge the Palestinian Authority as the legitimate government of a sovereign Palestine and negotiate with them. Cut Hamas off while still giving Palestinians a voice.

 

[an anarchist]

One problem is that with terrorists, you're essentially dealing with underground revolutionaries and resistance fighters who don't wear uniforms and oftentimes can't be distinguished from the civilian population. That seems to be a problem if the civilians are sympathetic and helping to shelter the terrorists. Then they become targets themselves.

In this scenario, if diplomacy is not chosen, then perhaps the option would be complete annexation and occupation (other than complete destruction). I’m not advocating for it, I’m just trying to think in practical terms.

 

[Wu Wei]

A war on terrorism.
The problem with a war on terrorism or a diplomatic approach is a terrorist organization.
Terrorist organizations are divided into Cells and each cell likely has no clue of the others existence. Only the person they answer to would know who they are and that person does not necessarily know all the cells. He 0r she only knows the ones they are responsible for and it works this way all the way up the chain.

Would an all out war that flattens Gaza would more than likely kill more innocent civilians than terrorists and at that point it would be very likely Hamas was no longer in the area and then operating in another country as Hamas or absorbed into another terrorist organization.

Diplomatic approach.... with Israel and Hamas.....maybe, but not likely. If one does not attack the other during peace talks it would be a miracle. So far they seem to have problems honoring a cease fire.... And who would represent Hamas? It has a leader, but that leader does not have absolute control over all the cells, simply because of the organization. So even if they are there in good faith, what is to stop one of the cells does not agree and choose that time for a terror attack. And what is to stop Israel from claiming to find out about a terrorist plot and attacking Gaza.

That part of the world in a powder keg waiting to happen and diplomacy and all out war..... not sure if anything would work...for long... There is a long history of tension between Israel and Palestine.... not sure how to, or if it is even possible to fix it beyond a band aide fix

 

[an anarchist]

or if it is even possible to fix it beyond a band aide fix

It seems that humanity has dug itself into a deep hole, yes.

I try to be optimistic about humanity’s chances, but you can very well be right.

 

[Wu Wei]

It seems that humanity has dug itself into a deep hole, yes.

I try to be optimistic about humanity’s chances, but you can very well be right.

There is always a chance, but sometimes it is incredibly hard to see or find. It is not impossible to get things to stop between Israel and Hamas, but at this point I do not see how. Possibly global military and economic pressure put on both sides, but you chance an all out world war then. Possibly diplomatic pressure on both sides, again, hard to say. The only thing we know at the moment is what is happening is not working