• @Puzzle_Sluts_4Ever@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    49 months ago

    Ignoring morals and ethics and focusing mostly on historic precedent?

    Firebombing a few city blocks. Possibly letting the angry young soldiers run wild on the civilian populace under the guise of getting “justice” for the civilians that hamas brutalized.

    That is more or less “war”. You raid one of my towns, I’ll raid two of yours. Ends when one side has been beaten into submission.

    Actively attacking third party civilians is not. The IDF has a very long history of doing this.

    • @lanolinoil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      6
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      That is more or less “war”. You raid one of my towns, I’ll raid two of yours. Ends when one side has been beaten into submission.

      Actively attacking third party civilians is not.

      I don’t think I agree – This is an awesome blog post you should totally read if you’re interested in history. https://acoup.blog/2022/07/29/collections-logistics-how-did-they-do-it-part-ii-foraging/

      I’d say anything post train you’re going to try to capture infrastructure to make war, so saying we’re sieging cities sounds more ancient to me.

      If you read that post, you’ll see ‘foraging’ really meant robbing and brutalizing local populaces for their food since anything but the smallest sized army can’t feed itself for more than a few weeks. Not to mention once we are sieging a city and starving all the people out.

      What are some modern examples of ‘letting your army run wild on the populace’? I know that happens quite a bit but I can’t think of any sanctioned ones unless we go to wwii Japan maybe? and that was more than a little wild. Seems like most of the time a platoon or w/e just goes berserker.

      • @Puzzle_Sluts_4Ever@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        5
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        There is strategy and there is retaliation. Shockingly, retaliation usually results in a prolonged war and long term rebellion.

        But if your goal is to hurt them for hurting you?

        As for recent wars where soldiers commit horrific crimes against civillian populaces. Off the top of my head:

        1. EVERY army in WW2. Japan took it down to a science but The Allies and the rest of The Axis were no saints
        2. Vietnam with US soldiers commiting horrific atrocities against the Vietnamese people
        3. Pretty much every civil war in Africa
        4. The Yugoslav Wars
        5. Russia’s actions in Ukraine (every time they invade)

        It is mostly that the US shockingly went hard on stopping troops from those kinds of massacres during the various invasions of the Middle East. That isn’t to say we didn’t find OTHER horrible shit to do but…

        As for logistics and resupplies: Gaza is literally within Israel’s borders. Supply chains won’t be an issue.

        • @lanolinoil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          19 months ago

          I don’t think you can call My Lai ‘sanctioned’ or official even though it was done by a commissioned officer who was court martialed (but got off). Even then they gave the heli pilot that landed between US troops and a group of civilians about to get murdered a silver star – https://www.britannica.com/event/My-Lai-Massacre

          Japan wwII definitely tactical and sanctioned but that one is weird because all of the military operated so independently.

          I don’t know enough about your other examples. It makes sense though and I like the word you use ‘retaliation’

          A good modern war planner isn’t going to waste energy on retaliation but when you get onto the ground and have a bunch of killers that don’t think of the enemy as all the way human (so you can convince them to do so much killing) retaliation would come up often. Also if you have some crazy strong man dictator, he may need retaliation to keep the image or drive his paranoia.