|
A question or two.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Hezbollah controls portions of Beirut too, don't they? What's the rationale for leaving them a safe harbor? Or for leaving intact the roads, bridges, and airports used to transport heavy weapons to them?
Attacks on power plants and the like may well be done simply to make the other attacks easier and safer for Israeli soldiers, and to disrupt Hezbollah's ability to counterattack. I would probably agree with you on the issue of destroying infrastructure simply to destroy infrastructure (the "set Lebanon back 20 years" notion), but I think I'm less prepared to ignore tactical considerations.
|
Military commanders frequently will want to do things for tactical reasons that may not make strategic sense. To take a completely unrelated example, the British military thinks that our commanders in Iraq have done a whole variety of things for force-protection reasons that have had the effect of frustrating our counter-insurgency efforts. If war is the continuation of politics by other means, then politics must dictate military strategy.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
