A Few of the Basics of War

The American Thinker ^ | 7/26/2006 | Greg Richards

[Dark Skies]

The world’s media are once again filtering warfare through their idiosyncratic perspectives. Most of them are shocked to discover that civilians are injured when terrorists locate military facilities in apartment houses, mosques, and other civilian locales. And they are doubly outraged when a missile or a shell goes off course injuring or killing innocents. But this is just one of the reasons that Sherman said that “war is hell.” That is why sensible people seek to avoid it. However, that does not relieve the observer of making judgments.

Herewith a primer to help with those judgments:

1. When you attack a country that is at peace, you are the aggressor. Aggression is a disruption of the civil order. It is not measured solely in the quantitative terms of the specific engagement. For instance, the significance of Pearl Harbor did not reside in the specific number of bombs the Japanese dropped on our ships. It also resided in the alteration of the relations between the two countries by force. It called forth a response on the part of the U.S. that was not, and was not intended to be, proportional to that attack. The response it called forth was to establish under whose power the citizens of each country were going to live.

2. In the Israel/Hizbullah War, Hizbullah is the aggressor. Israel was at peace with its neighboring country Lebanon. Out of the territory of Lebanon, Hizbullah undertook acts of war. Like the Japanese, they did not declare war, they undertook war.

3. Once war is initiated, then the question is not proportionality, but victory. The question to be decided is under whose power are the citizens of each country going to live?

4. The policy of the U.S. toward countries that attempt to bring our citizens under their power is “unconditional surrender.” This means that the U.S. expects to deliver to our enemy as much devastation in as compressed a timeframe as possible until the leadership of the country surrenders unconditionally to our power. That determines under whose power the citizens of each country are going to live: ours.

5. In the case of the Israel/Hizbullah War, the question is whether Israel will live under the power of Hizbullah or whether Hizbullah is going to live under the power of Israel. In that sense, whatever the vocabulary, Israel is now fighting for the unconditional surrender of Hizbullah, or what amounts to the same thing, its complete destruction. We can expect that Israel will deliver the maximum amount of damage against Hizbullah of which it is capable in as compressed a timeframe as possible.

6. However, as Pyrrhus showed two millennia ago, and Europe demonstrated again in World War I, it is possible to conduct a war so that victory is as devastating as defeat. Therefore, we can expect that Israel will also exercise economy of force so that the casualties that it experiences are not beyond the capability of its society to absorb. We can expect Israel to substitute technology for personnel to the extent possible while bending every effort to find out the weak points of Hizbullah.

7. Once a country is attacked by an enemy, there is no substitute for victory or the attack will continue. No society accepts that condition. There are only two outcomes – victory or defeat. We can assume that Israel is planning on victory and we can expect to see it expend the necessary force to achieve that.

8. During this period there is going to be violence. That is what war means. You can photograph it from every conceivable angle, and document every casualty. That does not change the fact that there is an aggressor – Hizbullah – and a defender – Israel. The end game of war is when the defender goes on the offensive to destroy the aggressor. The final stage of a war is when the defender appears to be the aggressor as it moves into the territory of the aggressor and burns out its black heart. That will be the final stage of the war. Then there will be peace.

9. All recent history shows that there is no role for a “peacekeeping” force in a situation of military antagonism. The oldest of illusions is that the “presence” of a third force will in some way provide a deterrent factor – wrong. Wrong when there was a UN force in Sinai before the 1967 War. Wrong when we put Marines in Lebanon in 1983. Wrong when we put unsupported troops in Mogadishu. Wrong when whatever grotesquely ineffective force was put in southern Lebanon by the UN defaulted on its duty. Why? Because the peacekeeping force is not playing for keeps while the aggressor is. So it cannot work. The only solution is the destruction of the aggressor. Otherwise the logic of the aggressor is to keep up the aggression. The aggressor doesn’t want peace, he wants victory. The only way to block that is to inflict defeat on him. There is no third way.

[2banana]

"War means fighting and fighting means killing" - NBF

[goldstategop]

A truism so obvious it should be as plain as day. But every generation has to relearn it.

(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em Down Hezbullies.)

[Dark Skies]

You're right! It is d@mned strange that any of this needs to be said.

[Sax]

The final stage of a war is when the defender appears to be the aggressor as it moves into the territory of the aggressor and burns out its black heart.

Now there's a nice little tid-bit.

[Publius6961]

Missing from the list...

Any plan to rebuild an enemy which has surrendered unconditionally is totally at the option of the victor; not of the vanquised or sideline spectators.

[Publius6961]

Missing from the list...

Any plan to rebuild an enemy which has surrendered unconditionally is totally at the option of the victor; not of the vanquised or sideline spectators.

[APRPEH]

in re: civilians and other non-combatants

Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, it is a war crime to use “the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations.”

crimes of war

[TChris]

A truism so obvious it should be as plain as day. But every generation has to relearn it.

Actually, only those who are so arrogant as to believe they are smarter than all generations before them must go through (sometimes dragging others with them) the pain of relearning it.

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

High volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. also

2006israelwar or WOT

..................

[piytar]

So clear, so irrefutable, so based on facts and logic -- and SO over the heads of the American and international left.

Short version: Upon war, there can be no peace but through victory.

[Christian4Bush]

BTTT

[RichInOC]

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OF SPECWAR ACCORDING TO RICHARD MARCINKO

I. I am the War Lord and the wrathful God of Combat and I will always lead you from the front, not from the rear.

II. I will treat you all alike-just like s**t.

III. Thou shalt do nothing I will not do first, and thus will you be created Warriors in My deadly image.

IV. I shall punish thy bodies because the more thou sweatest in training, the less thou bleedest in combat.

V. Indeed, if thou hurteth in thy efforts and thou suffer painful dings, then thou art Doing It Right.

VI. Thou hast not to like it-thou hast just to do it.

VII. Thou shalt Keep It Simple, Stupid.

VIII. Thou shalt never assume.

IX. Verily, thou art not paid for thy methods, but for thy results, by which meaneth thou shalt kill thine enemy before he killeth you by any means available.

X. Thou shalt, in thy Warrior's Mind and Soul, always remember My ultimate and final Commandment:There Are No Rules-Thou Shalt Win At All Cost.

[xenophiles]

The trouble with this list is that it's clearly tailored to the current conflict. If you don't believe me, try applying it to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. You have to either paint the U.S. as the aggressor (which in fact it was) and then accept all of the ugly implications, or else engage in childish specious logic (such as adding new tailored rules or redefining "peace" or "attack" beyond all recognition) to get the results you want.

[rennatdm]

"Proportionate Response"...we should boycott this socialist-utopian idealogy thrust upon us by the irrational,illogical left by not even acknowledging it as a base for argument.

[IronJack]

With the exception of the following, a bullseye of an article!

the question is whether Israel will live under the power of Hizbullah or whether Hizbullah is going to live under the power of Israel.

Israel does not demand that Scuzzbollah or any of the other vermin organizations live under its power. All Israel asks is to be left alone to prosper or fail on its own.

Scuzzbollah, on the other hand, cannot bear the existence of Israel, and insists not that it live under its control, but that it be erased from the earth entirely.

[calljack]

The US invasion of IRAQ was a direct result of the failure of Saddam to adhere to the conditions of surrender that were imposed upon him after the first gulf war when he was without a doubt the aggressor waging war on a county we have treaties with.
Therefore he was still the aggressor trying to impose his power on other countries by using non-conventional methods ie supporting terrorism ect.

[D-fendr]

I don't think so. Iraq was the agressor in Gulf War I. A ceasefire agreement was made. Iraq violated the ceasefire. War resumed.

[Joan Kerrey]

The aggressor doesn’t want peace, he wants victory. The only way to block that is to inflict defeat on him. There is no third way. but...but...but there must be a better way. So many are being killed on both sides. Perhaps if we can just reason with the aggressor and listen to their concerns there is still hope.

[Tolik]

Nailed It!
Moral Clarity BUMP !

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.