"Oh, and the US used heavy weapons to flatten buildings where bad guys were hiding. Fallujah was pretty devastated afterwards."
The key difference is that we used heavy weapons *when our forces were on the ground inside the city and taking fire* from these guys inside of buildings. That's not us doing massive airstrikes across the city *b…
"Oh, and the US used heavy weapons to flatten buildings where bad guys were hiding. Fallujah was pretty devastated afterwards."
The key difference is that we used heavy weapons *when our forces were on the ground inside the city and taking fire* from these guys inside of buildings. That's not us doing massive airstrikes across the city *before* our troops are even within the city limits. I cannot stress enough the major differences there. Again, cordon off the city, send ground troops in to clear it block by block, but *don't* do a mass airstrike campaign on the city and all the civilians inside of it before you even send troops into the city. The only airstrikes that should have happened is on targets that weren't close to collateral civilian damage, otherwise, hold the airstrikes until your troops are inside and can identify structures with Hamas fighters shooting at the IDF from within the structure. Until you take fire from a structure with civilians inside of it you should not be dropping ordnance on it, end of story.
I really think you are oversimplifying what "cordon off block by block" entails.
How exactly are they supposed to do this in a dense crowded city, all while under fire, and with an enemy that has an extensive tunnel network to move around in and get out of said cordon.
I said to cordon off the city and clear it block by block. That means setting up vehicle checkpoints at all the entrances and exits from the city. That's not hard to do, especially if you already have a wall up that surrounds the city. Once the cordon around the city is established, you clear the city out with infantry block by block, house by house. Yes, it sets up a possible Mogadishu scenario. But what it avoids is a thousands of dead children in about six weeks scenario. The IDF are going to lose troops. That's what happens to troops when they go to war. What Israel *should* be doing is avoiding civilian casualties at all costs because getting rid of Hamas entails getting the Palestinians to turn against them, which they are far less likely to do if you're leveling their entire apartment buildings to get after a handful of fighters. Even the Bush administration--as dumb as it was--understood this. Why the Israeli government does not understand it with all of our efforts in hindsight is beyond me.
So the Israeli army needs to take very high casualties for a long period of time, just to "minimize" (but not really) civilian casualties?
Sure...That's what armies do.
I'm pretty sure during your deployment you would have been really pissed watching your friends die in house to house combat all in the name of saving some enemy civilians.
The US military did it, so too can the IDF. So yea, that's exactly what armies do. Ours did it, theirs can do it too.
I did watch friends die in combat--some as young as 19, I'm a survivor of a complex suicide bombing attack, and I've been shot at plenty and blown up by IEDs. I wasn't just moving boxes around on a FOB my friend. I was on the ground as a combat engineer attached to infantry line companies during the heat of a civil war and an urban counterinsurgency campaign. I didn't get the experience I have reading articles, I actually lived it. I've actually been that guy going door to door in urban combat operations, so yea, I know exactly what that's like.
"Oh, and the US used heavy weapons to flatten buildings where bad guys were hiding. Fallujah was pretty devastated afterwards."
The key difference is that we used heavy weapons *when our forces were on the ground inside the city and taking fire* from these guys inside of buildings. That's not us doing massive airstrikes across the city *before* our troops are even within the city limits. I cannot stress enough the major differences there. Again, cordon off the city, send ground troops in to clear it block by block, but *don't* do a mass airstrike campaign on the city and all the civilians inside of it before you even send troops into the city. The only airstrikes that should have happened is on targets that weren't close to collateral civilian damage, otherwise, hold the airstrikes until your troops are inside and can identify structures with Hamas fighters shooting at the IDF from within the structure. Until you take fire from a structure with civilians inside of it you should not be dropping ordnance on it, end of story.
I really think you are oversimplifying what "cordon off block by block" entails.
How exactly are they supposed to do this in a dense crowded city, all while under fire, and with an enemy that has an extensive tunnel network to move around in and get out of said cordon.
Sounds a lot like a Mogadishu set up.
I said to cordon off the city and clear it block by block. That means setting up vehicle checkpoints at all the entrances and exits from the city. That's not hard to do, especially if you already have a wall up that surrounds the city. Once the cordon around the city is established, you clear the city out with infantry block by block, house by house. Yes, it sets up a possible Mogadishu scenario. But what it avoids is a thousands of dead children in about six weeks scenario. The IDF are going to lose troops. That's what happens to troops when they go to war. What Israel *should* be doing is avoiding civilian casualties at all costs because getting rid of Hamas entails getting the Palestinians to turn against them, which they are far less likely to do if you're leveling their entire apartment buildings to get after a handful of fighters. Even the Bush administration--as dumb as it was--understood this. Why the Israeli government does not understand it with all of our efforts in hindsight is beyond me.
So the Israeli army needs to take very high casualties for a long period of time, just to "minimize" (but not really) civilian casualties?
Sure...That's what armies do.
I'm pretty sure during your deployment you would have been really pissed watching your friends die in house to house combat all in the name of saving some enemy civilians.
The US military did it, so too can the IDF. So yea, that's exactly what armies do. Ours did it, theirs can do it too.
I did watch friends die in combat--some as young as 19, I'm a survivor of a complex suicide bombing attack, and I've been shot at plenty and blown up by IEDs. I wasn't just moving boxes around on a FOB my friend. I was on the ground as a combat engineer attached to infantry line companies during the heat of a civil war and an urban counterinsurgency campaign. I didn't get the experience I have reading articles, I actually lived it. I've actually been that guy going door to door in urban combat operations, so yea, I know exactly what that's like.
Well, that's my point - I'd rather blow up the building than have Americans die. Call me callous, but there it is.