"The lesson is that you can only win in urban warfare by protecting civilians."

[fantome profane]

The following is a snippet from a speech given recently by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin.



"You know, I learned a thing or two about urban warfare from my time fighting in Iraq and leading the campaign to defeat ISIS.

Like Hamas, ISIS was deeply embedded in urban areas. And the international coalition against ISIS worked hard to protect civilians and create humanitarian corridors, even during the toughest battles.

So the lesson is not that you can win in urban warfare by protecting civilians. The lesson is that you can only win in urban warfare by protecting civilians.

You see, in this kind of a fight, the center of gravity is the civilian population. And if you drive them into the arms of the enemy, you replace a tactical victory with a strategic defeat.


So I have repeatedly made clear to Israel’s leaders that protecting Palestinian civilians in Gaza is both a moral responsibility and a strategic imperative.

And so I have personally pushed Israeli leaders to avoid civilian casualties, and to shun irresponsible rhetoric, and to prevent violence by settlers in the West Bank, and to dramatically expand access to humanitarian aid."



What do you think? Do you agree or disagree?

And whether or not you disagree, what (if anything) do you think this might indicate about U.S. foreign policy going forward.


(please keep the conversation civil and on topic, the topic to be clear is the snippet of the speech above).

 

[Twilight Hue]

The following is a snippet from a speech given recently by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin.



"You know, I learned a thing or two about urban warfare from my time fighting in Iraq and leading the campaign to defeat ISIS.

Like Hamas, ISIS was deeply embedded in urban areas. And the international coalition against ISIS worked hard to protect civilians and create humanitarian corridors, even during the toughest battles.

So the lesson is not that you can win in urban warfare by protecting civilians. The lesson is that you can only win in urban warfare by protecting civilians.

You see, in this kind of a fight, the center of gravity is the civilian population. And if you drive them into the arms of the enemy, you replace a tactical victory with a strategic defeat.


So I have repeatedly made clear to Israel’s leaders that protecting Palestinian civilians in Gaza is both a moral responsibility and a strategic imperative.

And so I have personally pushed Israeli leaders to avoid civilian casualties, and to shun irresponsible rhetoric, and to prevent violence by settlers in the West Bank, and to dramatically expand access to humanitarian aid."



What do you think? Do you agree or disagree?

And whether or not you disagree, what (if anything) do you think this might indicate about U.S. foreign policy going forward.


(please keep the conversation civil and on topic, the topic to be clear is the snippet of the speech above).

I definitely agree. While it's not possible to save all civilians in a war zone, the technology exists today where it can be substantially minimized.

Ukraine is a good example of that with use of drones and ai technology that is terrifyingly precise and lethal in the right hands.

 

[fantome profane]

I definitely agree. While it's not possible to save all civilians in a war zone, the technology exists today where it can be substantially minimized.

Ukraine is a good example of that with use of drones and ai technology that is terrifyingly precise and lethal in the right hands.

Exactly right. However the situation in Ukraine is different in that it is Ukraine that is making effort to protect Ukrainian civilians. Russia certainly is not making any effort at all to minimize civilian casualties. And that is one of the reasons I have said from the beginning of that war is that Russia lost before it began. Russia is a perfect example of tactical victory and strategic defeat.

 

[Estro Felino]

I imagine that what the Anglo-American powers did in the forties was justified, n'est-ce pas?

Bombing Dresden and Berlin was justified because Germans are all ugly, dirty and mean.

Do you have any idea of how many German civilians were against Hitler?

Whereas the civilians of Gaza of untouchables, even if they harbor terrorists.

Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

I imagine that what the Anglo-American powers did in the forties was justified, n'est-ce pas?

Bombing Dresden and Berlin was justified because Germans are all ugly, dirty and mean.

Do you have any idea of how many German civilians were against Hitler?

Whereas the civilians of Gaza of untouchables, even if they harbor terrorists.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Have you read Slaughterhouse 5?