Comments on: Of drones and doctrines

By: Michael Lonie

Michael Lonie — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 05:36:00 +0000

Didn’t that air campaign work so well in 2006? Oh wait.

The most effective tactics are those that combine arms, for example air, infantry, armor, and artillery all working together. To restrict yourself to a single threat axis against the enemy is to weaken yourself unnecessarily.

We might note that Pakistan does not have control over the Tribal Areas of the Northwest Frontier Province. In other words, Paksitan cannot exert its sovereignty there. If it is being used for attacks against us and Afghanistan then it is fair game unless Paksitan can extend its control over the territory. Then Pakistan is obligated, obligated under real international law, to prevent acts of war from being conducted from that area. Since that does not now obtain, we are fully justified under international law in using military action there.

Israel’s government’s primary obligation is to Israelis, to safeguard them and to win when they must use military force. Bibi should tell the UN and the other critics to STFU.

By: Mr. G

Mr. G — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:01:54 +0000

Under this logic submarines, snipers, archers, etc. are illegal. In fact if you would successfully use camouflage you could not engage in warfare. For those who would like to know the outcome of revealing yourself as a target please watch Monty Python’s “How not to be seen”. It was meant to be satirical but they were always ahead of their time. Now its philosophy.

Of course if you set off a bomb and kill women and children who will never be a threat you are a freedom fighter.

By: Sabba Hillel

Sabba Hillel — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:04:38 +0000

The point is that they are trying to stay “unnamed” so that people will not realize that, not only do they have no authority, they have no knowledge, intellect, or honesty. In any case, they do not seem to realize that attempting to restrict the Israeli reaction to “short” will actually increase collateral damage. The shortest reaction is A Dresden style bombing (or even a single nuke).

It is only because Israel restrains itself in order to avoid collateral damage that we do not have a “short” attack.

By: Avigdor MBawlmawr

Avigdor MBawlmawr — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:31:21 +0000

Where does such a doctrine come from? Whole nations, or at least entities, go to war. Any military asset of your enemy threatens you as a nation, so you may destroy it. A law that demands one be under threat before deadly force is used applies in civil society: John can only shoot Steve when he is at risk of –as they say here in MD — “grave bodily injury or death.” Such an “under-threat” doctrine would prohibit virtually all bombardment, shelling, bombing, cruise missiles, etc. Who are these unnamed “critics” and what authority do they cite?