A One-Sided War

[bemildred]

---

It started as an operation to save Corporal Shalit. How does one free a soldier who has been taken prisoner by underground organizations, whose whereabouts are unknown? How does one free him by force without endangering his life?

The army has a solution - the same solution it has for each and every problem: apply massive force. If only we conquer, pulverize, kill and destroy more and more, the moment will come when the Palestinian people will not be able to stand the suffering and will demand that the underground fighters release the captured soldier. Unconditionally.

This might be called the "Harris Principle". In World War II, the British Air-Marshal Arthur Harris ("Bomber Harris") promised to bring Germany to its knees by turning its cities into rubble. The Germans spoke of "terror attacks". In one of them, the city of Dresden, one of the biggest and most splendid in Germany, was razed to the ground. In the giant conflagration, between 35,000 and 100,000 civilians were burnt to death (it was impossible to count the victims after the firestorm). But quite contrary to Harris' promise, German morale did not collapse. Germany surrendered only after the last German house was taken by foot soldiers.

The Palestinian population, too, is not collapsing, in spite of its dreadful situation. It demands, almost unanimously, that the captors not release the soldiers if there is no release of "Palestinian prisoners-of-war".

---

Avery on Counterpunch

[Boojatta]

1. "surrendered only after the last German house was taken by foot soldiers"

Why do I not trust that the author is a source of accurate information?

[bemildred]

2. He exaggerates a bit there.

His point is sound though, the use of terror against civilian populations (which is what such bombing is) does not seem to sap the will to fight in the way the bombers intend. It tends to unite the bombed. It's been tried many times now, starting with Guernica. Generally, bombing does not have the desired effect of war production either, although there the evidence is murkier. Or at least, one can find a number of historical writers who espouse that point of view. The results in Faloojah and Ramadi may be easily seen today. Stalingrad comes to mind, the Chinese resistance to Japan in WWII, VietNam, etc. Many many instances, all ignored over and over. The military effects vary somewhat, but it is never the case that "the will of the enemy is broken". The one shining contradiction was the nuclear bombing of Japan, and it's clear they were already trying to surrender.

[Boojatta]

3. "it's clear they were already trying to surrender."

I suppose they were trying to persuade non-Japanese to refrain from killing Japanese soldiers.

When did the Japanese government stop deliberately starving and torturing prisoners of war?

Why were Japanese chemical weapons dumped in pits and rivers in China? Why weren't those weapons fenced in and marked with a large number of prominent and clearly written warnings in Japanese and Chinese?

[bemildred]

5. You don't expect me to defend the Japanese in WWII do you?

All I said was that they were trying to negotiate surrender when we dropped the A-bombs on them. I didn't say they were sweethearts.

[Boojatta]

10. In other words, the Japanese government didn't want to stop killing people

The Japanese government simply wanted to negotiate a deal biased in favor of Japan.

[bemildred]

11. I don't understand your point.

I don't disagree with you exactly, I just don't understand why you think it's relevant. What do you think the Japanese government at that time ought to have done, if not to try to negotiate an advantageous end to the war they were losing so badly? And what does that have to do with the discussion about the failings of attacks on civilian populations as a way to "break their will to resist"?

[The Magistrate]

13. One Small Caveat, My Friend

And it is offered with some trepidation, as it could veer the discussion completely off onto a tangent....

Tha Japanese peace feelers were much less solid than they are often taken for. They originated in civilian elements of the government: they did not have the acquiesence of the military leadership, and indeed those pressing them moved with great circumspection, for fear of assassination by the military leadership, a routine element of Japan's political culture in the preceeding couple of decades.

As you say, Japan and the nuclear bombing atop the horrendous series of fire-raids, seems to be the nearest thing to an actual instance of a nation's will to fight being broken by aerial bombardment. One special feature of the case, though, is that in the final analysis, it was one man's mind, that of the Emperor, that had to be broken to break that national will. That is something of an oversimplification, of course, but was the essential element even so.

[bemildred]

14. It is a murky point Sir, I agree.

The truth is I advanced it (the Japanese case) with some trepidation, but I wanted to be fair to the issue.

One can also point to instances in colonial and pre-modern history where conquerors or colonizers have succeeded in intimidating subject populations with some success; but in the last 200 years or so it has become much harder to do, and much harder to maintain the subjection of a people if one manages to attain it; and my main point, the relative inutility of terror in general and bombing in particular for that purpose seems fairly clear in modern times.

[Boojatta]

15. I responded to your statement

"it's clear they were already trying to surrender."

Suppose we were talking about some men working together with guns to control property they do not legally possess and to hold hostages on that property. Suppose you knew that the men were actually in the process of sexually assaulting some civilian hostages, physically torturing and starving some soldiers who had tried to intervene, and dumping poisonous chemicals on the premises knowing that they would be likely to later poison and kill people. Would you say that while they were in the process of doing all those things that they were "trying to surrender" to the police?

[bemildred]

17. This is war, what do police have to do with it?

I can vaguely see what you might be driving at, but it seems very simple minded to me. The fact that the Japanese military continued with it's "activities" does not prevent some other part of the Japanese government from attempting to negotiate surrender, nor does it prevent some large portion of the Japanese civilian population from being - in some measure - bystanders in events they have no control over.

I gather you think the nuclear bombing was a good idea, and you want to talk about that. I suggest you start a thread about it. I don't have any fixed opinion. I was not talking about whether it was a good idea, but rather pointing out that it was one of the few instances where bombing arguably worked as a means to cow a civilian population into accepting colonization and occupation. That itself, the surrender and occupation of Japan, is actually a very complicated subject, as is the efficacy of nuclear weapons, and I intend to avoid them here, as they are peripheral to what I was talking about, which is messy enough.

[Boojatta]

24. I think this discussion has been helpful

This is war, what do police have to do with it?

I described a hypothetical situation involving police. Police are relevant because they are part of the given hypothetical situation. You can ignore the question, but if you are going to answer it then you should probably either demonstrate that the hypothetical situation is impossible or accept the hypotheses.

The fact that the Japanese military continued with it's "activities" does not prevent some other part of the Japanese government from attempting to negotiate surrender

You are absolutely right about that, but I think that the phrase "trying to surrender" can be very misleading. Nobody who reads this whole thread is likely to be misled, but the issue of Japan popped up with very little prompting, so it might pop up again in other discussions. This seems to be a fairly good opportunity to try to identify what it means to "try to surrender."

Did you intend to insinuate that the Japanese military was a law unto itself? If it had been a law unto itself, then would it have allowed "some other part of the Japanese government" to negotiate its surrender?

I gather you think the nuclear bombing was a good idea

No, a nuclear bomb treats people who are actively attacking you the same way that it treats people who haven't attacked anyone. At least with a gun one can attempt to aim.

[bemildred]

25. I think I'll just ignore the question.

You really ought to start your own thread with this.
I didn't mean to insinuate anything, I said what I meant. I actually go to a good deal of trouble to try to be clear.
I am glad we agree that nuclear bombing is a bad idea, and that more "precise" methods are to be preferred.

[azurnoir]

4. When it comes to Dresden

The Brits have admitted it was an act of revenge. Americans helped out by strafing civilian as they tried to leave the city which was engulfed in a fire storm by the use of incendiary bombs. The city was what was called an "open city".The strike was about 2 months before the end of war, the Official reason was that the allies were concerned that the Germans could reroute railroad lines that had already been destroyed through it.

[bemildred]

6. An excellent example of terror bombing.

Comparable to the nuking of Japan, without the nuclear weapons.

[cantstandbush]

7. My God. It was a SOLDIER taken captive. Not a "kidnapping."

The Israeli response was and continiues to be way overboard. It's a part of war that SOLDIERS may be taken captive. I think Israeli is using this as a pretense to massacre Palestinians and destroy the infrastructure of Gaza, something desired by Israeli hawks since leaving Gaza. It borders on being a war crime.

[Waya]

8. Gotta agree with that..............

[Boojatta]

16. "It's a part of war that SOLDIERS may be taken captive."

Would you say that the Israeli response was and continiues to be way overboard for a country that is at war?

[barb162]

18. And what would you suggest is the correct Israeli response?

I think the Israelis are doing a number of things here, including trying to stop the kassams, getting their soldier back, etc

[Englander]

19. That '&tc' includes war crimes.

You've neglected to mention that, the deliberate destruction of essential services for the civilain
population, & the targeting of the civilian population, is defined by any objective witness as war
crimes.

And what would you suggest is the correct Israeli response?

Negotiations, or the release of the hundreds of political prisoners that Israel is holding would be
a start. What's your suggestion as to the 'correct Israeli response'?

[barb162]

20. So when the Pals shoot off kassams at Sdierot they are

committing war crimes, correct? Or suicide bomb at bus stations, schools, hopping centers, etc? If deliberate destruction is the "standard" I'd say the Pals are guilty of plenty of war crimes.
Negotiations presumably weren't going anywhere as one would note the soldier still hasn't been returned to Israel

[Englander]

21. Stick to the topic, barb.

If you'd read the links I've posted from HRW, ai, B'Tselem, they all make the point that the kassams
must stop. *

The argument you're presenting is just a red herring, or an abhorrent attempt to justify the ongoing
Israeli war crimes, because 'they're doing it, too'. But, at least we have a breakthrough, you've
accepted that Israel's committing war crimes in Gaza.

So, what's your suggestion as to the 'correct Israeli response', I note that you've not mentioned
any suggestions?


*
From last month;
HRW : Israel: Investigate Gaza Beach Killings
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=127696

In the HRW release;

'Israel: Investigate Gaza Beach Killings

>snip

The attack at the beach comes amidst an intensified Israeli response to Qassam rocket attacks by Palestinian armed groups operating in the area. Human Rights Watch, which is also investigating the use of Qassams against Israeli civilians, has http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/06/09/isrlpa11106.htm">previously called on Palestinian armed groups to cease such unlawful attacks. The Qassam attacks violate international law because they fail to discriminate between military targets and civilians. Qassam rockets are highly imprecise, homemade weapons that are incapable of being targeted at specific objects.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/06/13/isrlpa13544.htm

____________


B'Tselem;
10 June 2006: Israeli Human Rights Organizations: End Killing of Civilians
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=127173#127280

>snip

The organizations add that it is indeed Israel's obligation to take all legitimate steps at its disposal to defend the lives and security of its citizens from attacks by Palestinian organizations. These attacks by Palestinian groups, which deliberately target civilians, constitute a war crime for which there can be no justification. However, it is unconscionable that a sovereign state should use illegal means, some of which reach the level of war crimes. The organizations reiterate that one of Israel's central obligations under international humanitarian law is to minimize the impact of military action on the civilian population, and to ensure the life and security of Palestinian civilians, also during armed conflict.

__________________

ai;
Israel/Occupied Territories: Immediate action needed to avert humanitarian crisis in Gaza
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=125181#125235


From the ai report;

>snip

Amnesty International calls on all High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions to urge Israel to respect its obligations as an Occupying Power and to take immediate measures to address the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.

Amnesty International reiterates its call on all Palestinian armed groups to put an immediate end to indiscriminate attacks and deliberate attacks on Israeli civilians. Such attacks are prohibited at all times and under any circumstances.

The organization also reiterates its call on the PA to do its utmost to stop and prevent such attack by Palestinian armed groups and to investigate any such attacks or attempted attacks which may occur, and bring to justice those responsible, including those responsible for past attacks.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engMDE150252006?open&of=eng-ISR

Edited to include links.

[barb162]

22. Don't tell me how to do posts, Englander

and don't tell me I am trying to present a red herring, etc., because you'd be quite off base. And what you might assume as facts, others might take as very poorly formed opinion.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

26. He didn't. He suggested you stick to the topic and read links...

It's something that most people do as a matter of fact. Yr argument appears to be nothing more than going along the lines of when Israel attacks and kills civilians it's a highly commendable and noble action, yet when anyone attacks Israel it's a war-crime. And that sort of argument is what's a very poorly formed opinion based on nothing more than bias and emotion...

[The Magistrate]

9. An Excellent Analysis As Always, Mr. Mildred

One prominent military thinker of highest caliber, Maj. Liddel-Hart, has gone so far as to suggest that as a general rule the involvement of civilians directly in war-fare, via such means as mass bombing, actually strengthens the will of both the civilian populace and a nation's military to continue fighting, by promoting civilian identification with the fighting elements and imbuing them with the same elements of combat solidarity so important in front-line units, and by giving the combat elements some stake far above the national war aim and the national government to fight for, namely the direct safety of, or vengeance for, their families.

[bemildred]

12. Thank you, Sir.

I don't know if I'd go so far as "excellent", but I appreciate your support.