When America attacks someone there always seems to be the intention of saving the target from an evil regime and bringing democracy to the people. The way they operate is determined by this. Israel on the other hand just pounds anyone and anything into dust that is opposing it. Putting aside for the moment the rights or wrongs of recent/current conflicts, which approach gets the best results. My initial view is the Israeli option works the best.
2006-09-12 02:51:13 · 11 answers · asked by kiwi 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
The best strategy is the one where you win. The simple fact is that we are drowned in media coverage these days. Most people are not ready to stomach the body counts. Yet we are constantly reminded of what it is. There have always been hawks and doves in the world, but it is definitely apparent that the doves control the media in large part these days. We no longer fight wars from a winning viewpoint. War is not civilian friendly, and classic warfare attacks the citizenry openly, it is part of destroying the enemies will to fight. I believe that people have a right to know what is going on in a free society, but I don't think we have to know what happens every minute or every day in a battle zone. If we had been possessed of the same media standards in World War II as we are today, we would not have won. They would have used the same arguments for Hitler that they are using for Saddam Hussein. That anyone could look at the attrocities this man has committed over the years, and then make indictments against their own people for removing such a monster is beyond my comprehension. We should all strive to avoid war when possible, but once the battle is engaged we should fight to win, and let the chips fall where they may. There will always be war, there always has been war, and winning beating losing any day.
2006-09-12 03:07:50 · answer #1 · answered by Bryan 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The latest Israeli conflict ended badly for Israel. They lost face in the Arab world, which, is just as bad as a military defeat for them. They are now in a situation where their neighbors doubt their conviction to fight a prolonged battle and I think you will see an increase in terrorism. Their strategy may have worked had they pressed the battle to a definitive conclusion, but they bowed to internal and world pressure to cease fire (a mistake).
War is terrible and the media now brings those horrors right into the living room 24/7. This has done more to cripple military operations than anything else. The difference is that when it is a terrorist or Arab dead, the world goes into an outrage. When it is a US soldier being dragged behind a pickup truck, the world cheers. That said, I think I need to agree with you in the bomb the he11 out of them and worry about the consequences later. The world already hates the US and Israel, there will be no change in reaction if we execute total war or the "kinder, gentler" war that we are now. Show excessive force and make the terrorists, insurgents and their families pay.
2006-09-12 03:04:48 · answer #2 · answered by Hockey, Guns & Beer 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You are quite right. Unfortunately, the immediacy of modern news reporting allows the public to know instantly of ANY misstep by the military, which leads to the usual b!tching and moaning about the president being worse than the terrorists and all that jazz. Back during the Second World War, public opinion was much more in favor of the Israeli method -- you blast the enemy into oblivion, or until you've completely broken their will or ability to fight. Thinking that one could negotiate or compromise with evil is what gave the Axis powers the time needed to build up their military might to the point where they were a serious threat to the Allies.
2006-09-12 02:55:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Targeted warfare only works if there is a single target that will end the war if the target is killed. Removing Saddam Hussein didn't end the war in Iraq... it really started it, as Hussein used ruthless means to keep the peace. Once he was removed, armed mobs ran amok and slowly coalesced into the resistance we see today.
If you're going to have a war, the most successful tactic is total warfare. This was the technique first best demonstrated by Ulysses S. Grant, William T. Sherman and Phillip Sheridan in the US Civil War. The object was to destroy the enemy's army and eliminate his means of support, such as transportation and food. It was insanely destructive, but it worked.
It would be very difficult to wage this kind of war today, as modern news reporting would alert the population to the level of destruction. Modern western society would simply not allow this level of destruction -- it is politically and diplomatically unsustainable.
2006-09-12 03:05:31 · answer #4 · answered by pvreditor 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
yep you are rite
with 1 exception this last war the leader a layer went against his military leaders and tried a shock and awe bombing learned from us it didn't work so well the military wanted to do the surprise attack and get all the leaders they could captured or killed destroy all there missiles and get out quick
Thain just like Egypt they would think twice about doing it again now you have other country's thinking hay i can survive this lets take out Israel piece at a time
2006-09-12 02:53:48 · answer #5 · answered by mobile auto repair (mr fix it) 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Works best for what though?
What you "claim" Israel is doing winds up being a diplomatic disaster.
2006-09-12 02:53:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
America's stattergy is for anoher country.... & ofcourse its own intrests
Israel's to sae its own skin hence a lotmore aggressive...
the best stratergy is the one that wins....
2006-09-12 03:11:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
guerilla warfare will win these modern wars
2006-09-12 20:35:25 · answer #8 · answered by acid tongue 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Probably the one that wins!
2006-09-12 16:50:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
know yourself, know your opponent, try to avoid war, but if this is not the case, strike quick and hard
2006-09-12 02:53:42 · answer #10 · answered by ? 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋