Why does Hamas launch rockets from cities?

[Alceste]

He wouldn't do what you want. Unless you have changed your mind.

Oh really? Because as I recall, once I was given control of the IDF, my strategy after sacking all the maniacs at the generals' table and stopping the bombardment of homes, schools, civilian infrastructure and hospitals, was to go in with ground forces supported by air artillery and kill or capture Hamas militants until they're no longer a threat. You can go back and read it yourself if you like.

 

[Alceste]

Yea, no. I didn't agree to be part of that game.

That's a battle of hypotheticals that i'm not interested in. Acquiring certain knowledge over an 18 year military career in no way qualifies me to make decisions like that. Even if it's only discussion. Sorry to burst your bubble

It is alright. Alceste will have to find someone else then. You have burst her bubble.

Bubble is not burst. My point was that somebody (like Ritalin) who clearly understands the importance of avoiding civilian casualties and has the requisite experience would be in charge of executing the new strategy.

It doesn't have to literally be him. Jay asked what I would do, so I answered.

 

[RitalinOhD]

Oh really? Because as I recall, once I was given control of the IDF, my strategy after sacking all the maniacs at the generals' table and stopping the bombardment of homes, schools, civilian infrastructure and hospitals, was to go in with ground forces supported by air artillery and kill or capture Hamas militants until they're no longer a threat. You can go back and read it yourself if you like.

And as is true in any military conflict, civilian casualties is a reality that unfortunately is unavoidable. In order to minimize it, the attacking force must put their troops in harm's way. But that's what they signed up for. No getting around that.

No collateral damage is the aim, it's just not the reality.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is also the reality that these homes, schools, civilian infrastructure and hospitals are far too often conscripted or coerced into terrorist infrastructure.

 

[RitalinOhD]

It is also the reality that these homes, schools, civilian infrastructure and hospitals are far too often conscripted or coerced into terrorist infrastructure.

Perhaps. But do you think bombing them is the most effective tactic to both kill militants and minimize killing women and children?

 

[Alceste]

And as is true in any military conflict, civilian casualties is a reality that unfortunately is unavoidable. In order to minimize it, the attacking force must put their troops in harm's way. But that's what they signed up for. No getting around that.

No collateral damage is the aim, it's just not the reality.

Exactly. At least ground troops have an opportunity to distinguish between a bunch of kids playing soccer on the beach and a grown man launching a rocket before pulling the trigger. And civilians can see or hear ground troops coming and try to get the hell out of the way. The IDF's leaflets are a pitiful substitute, particularly since they sometimes end up blowing up the exact same building the leaflets promised would be safe (like the UN school), after people have followed the instructions to the letter. And also because when civilians evacuate their homes, the IDF regularly enters and trashes them.

The answer to the question of "how many civilian casualties are acceptable" is "as few as possible". The IDF is currently making almost no meaningful effort to protect civilian lives, so ANY sincere effort would be a massive improvement.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Perhaps.

No, not "perhaps."

But do you think bombing them is the most effective tactic to both kill militants and minimize killing women and children?

I honestly do not know. The anguish felt by many comes from the sense that we are confronted with two stark options: 1) inviting excessive collateral damage, or 2) allowing Hamas to operate with impunity.

 

[Alceste]

It is also the reality that these homes, schools, civilian infrastructure and hospitals are far too often conscripted or coerced into terrorist infrastructure.

The dismantling of "terrorist infrastructure" (by which I assume you mean tunnels and armories) can come after any given sector is cleared of civilians and the militants therein have been killed or captured. The method of destruction should depend on where it is. If there's a bunch of rockets in a hospital basement, you go in and get the rockets. You don't have to blow up the whole hospital and kill or maim everybody inside. If there's a tunnel, it can presumably be filled or collapsed while inflicting minimal damage to the surrounding buildings and no damage to the surrounding civilians.

Alternatively, disarmament and the destruction of tunnels can be a condition of peace negotiations (with the PA, obviously, not Hamas) after a calmer approach results in a calmer response (which I believe to be inevitable). That's how things progressed in Northern Ireland, so I see no reason it couldn't work that way in Palestine.

 

[RitalinOhD]

No, not "perhaps."

I honestly do not know. The anguish felt by many comes from the sense that we are confronted with two stark options: 1) inviting excessive collateral damage, or 2) allowing Hamas to operate with impunity.

Would you concede that a mainly ground based incursion has the potential to minimize the death of civilians much more effectively than massive airstrikes?

 

[Koldo]

Oh really? Because as I recall, once I was given control of the IDF, my strategy after sacking all the maniacs at the generals' table and stopping the bombardment of homes, schools, civilian infrastructure and hospitals, was to go in with ground forces supported by air artillery and kill or capture Hamas militants until they're no longer a threat. You can go back and read it yourself if you like.

His method of choice ( or the last the only one he mentioned ) is to use a few soldiers to check the situation and then proceed with an attack coming from air if the enemy is found and collateral damage is considered acceptable.

Your method of choice is to send ground units to kill and/or arrest the enemy with air cover.

There is a disagreement on what to do.

 

[Koldo]

Bubble is not burst. My point was that somebody (like Ritalin) who clearly understands the importance of avoiding civilian casualties and has the requisite experience would be in charge of executing the new strategy.

It doesn't have to literally be him. Jay asked what I would do, so I answered.

You don't need to hide the fact you are heartbroken. It is alright. It happens to everyone.

 

[Flankerl]

Would you concede that a mainly ground based incursion has the potential to minimize the death of civilians much more effectively than massive airstrikes?

Yes ground invasions into cities are known to keep the death toll on everyone involved low.

This is why its common military tactic all around the world to just walk into a city you are besieging. There are no drawbacks at all.


t. internet wisdom

 

[Alceste]

His method of choice ( or the last the only one he mentioned ) is to use a few soldiers to check the situation and then proceed with an attack coming from air if the enemy is found and collateral damage is considered acceptable.

Your method of choice is to send ground units to kill and/or arrest the enemy with air cover.

There is a disagreement on what to do.

I think you misunderstood his comments.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Would you concede that a mainly ground based incursion has the potential to minimize the death of civilians much more effectively than massive airstrikes?

Of course. It also has the potential to incur extensive civilian loss as the citizens of Gaza find themselves caught in the crossfire. And it has the potential to fail miserably, incurring enormous Israeli military losses and while allowing the rocket barrages against Israel to continue unabated.

But what about this: what about a massive multinational force that marches into Gaza with the expressed intent of demilitarizing Hamas, destroying its terrorist infrastructure, transferring power to the PLO, and proceeding with reconstruction?

 

[Alceste]

Yes ground invasions into cities are known to keep the death toll on everyone involved low.

This is why its common military tactic all around the world to just walk into a city you are besieging. There are no drawbacks at all.


t. internet wisdom

We've already acknowledged that soldiers will die. That's the job. Dead soldiers vs. dead civilian children. That's the choice that has to be made, and any authentically moral individual can plainly see which it has to be.

If you don't like it, get out of the war business.

 

[Koldo]

The answer to the question of "how many civilian casualties are acceptable" is "as few as possible". The IDF is currently making almost no meaningful effort to protect civilian lives, so ANY sincere effort would be a massive improvement.

As few as possible for what intent?

 

[Alceste]

Of course. It also has the potential to incur extensive civilian loss as the citizens of Gaza find themselves caught in the crossfire. And it has the potential to fail miserably, incurring enormous Israeli military losses and while allowing the rocket barrages against Israel to continue unabated.

But what about this: what about a massive multinational force that marches into Gaza with the expressed intent of demilitarizing Hamas, destroying its terrorist infrastructure, transferring power to the PLO, and proceeding with reconstruction?

Until Bush's wars, Canada's troops were deployed as UN peacekeeping forces, and the majority of Canadians prefer it that way. We're not that into fighting in other people's wars.

 

[Alceste]

As few as possible for what intent?

To achieve a legitimate strategic objective, such as killing or capturing enemy fighters.

 

[Koldo]

I think you misunderstood his comments.

I don't think so.
He mentioned the TAC-P, and from what I have seen so far, that is essentially used for directing air strikes.

 

[Koldo]

To achieve a legitimate strategic objective, such as killing or capturing enemy fighters.

What comes first, though?
Civilian lives or killing/capturing enemy fighters?