(I’m a bit averse to talking about military strategy, which is why I don’t bring it up too much in my journal)
Here we go again. In Lebanon we see the implementation of a flawed theory situated among neoconservative imperialists, Chairbornes with their 104-trigger guns, and those that dabble in study of 4th generation warfare( I do study it, but from an anti-imperial perspective) . The flawed theory being strategic bombing or military blockade of civilian infrastructure in order to facilitate a popular revolt against a native authority(Luft’s comment near the bottom). I assume someone in Israel’s top brass thought and still thinks thinks that starving out the Lebanese will encourage them to mob out on Hezbollah.
Is there an example where this assumption has worked in the last half of the 20th century? Because I can name two situations where it hasn’t.
- Since 1993, Israel’s perpetual dance rehearsal of the current situation of Lebanon struck the Palestinian infrastructure in the form of killing Palestinian cops and bombing power plants . Who do the Palestinians blame? None other than the people that actually did it.
- The Kosovo conflict is where strategic bombing was tried out most publicly. Advocates cite the emergence of OTPOR as a result of the NATO bombing campaign in Yugoslavia. The only thing they don’t know or want to admit they know is is that OTPOR was supported by American NGO Freedom House (page 7).
So why do people believe that a starved or bombed populace is stupid enough to blame anyone other than the people that bombed thier infrastructure and blockaded their cities. Do the advocates believe that the victims will be like the F.A.G who blame Team America for the terrorist attack on the Panama Canal( It’s obvious that Parker and Stone believe that everyone whom doesn’t agree with them is stupid, but DAMN!).
It seems that the strategy of destroying basic infrastructure to starve out populations doesn’t do much else than starve out populations.