War in Israel

[Griz882]

Considering we haven't actually discussed ROE or anything to do with what you're bringing into the conversation, and you are way out of your depth, I'll choose to pass. As for your second sentence, I never said civilian casualties aren't an acceptable part of war, or anything close to that. Try reading what I said again. Think I need to follow other's leads and just block all the non-aviators who troll here.


Well, you had 1 good post, Griz, and I thought we were going to be able to have a civil debate, and now you're following it up with a bunch of ad hominem attacks on me (in it for the fight, not the logic, calling me immature, etc.) I think if you read my post, every argument I made is based in logic. I asked you a lot of questions to challenge your logic, and you answered none of them. But sure, I'll go through your post and again, defeat your arguments with logic.


Wars are not equal, Griz, and the CoG is not always the same. In your first example, WW2, it was absolutely about hardware. Human morale was important, but it was the German manufacturing and equipment that was winning them the war until our superior manufacturing turned it in our favor. You not understanding that does not inspire confidence in the rest, but lets continue. You state that Hamas is growing more unpopular since the war started... Do you have evidence of that? The article I posted was based on a poll before the war started. To the contrary, there is much evidence that the Palestinian cause more broadly has gained a lot of popularity since the war started. For evidence, see the recent articles I posted regarding increasing support in the UN, POTUS' recent comments, SECDEF's recent comments, etc.


This is a complete straw man argument. I never said Israel could fight this war without civilian casualties, or any warring power could. I said Israel is conducting the war immorally with excessive and unnecessary civilian casualties, and many months ago I referenced proportionality in that argument, and I still stand by that. Leveling a 6 story apartment complex in a refugee camp that you recently told civilians to flee TO, for the military purpose of killing 1 room of terrorists, is not proportional in my opinion. You are free to disagree with that opinion, but clearly much of the world agrees, and that is the more important point: Israel is hurting themselves by their "indiscriminate bombing", to quote POTUS.


I've considered Orwell's musings you pointed out, and I find the execution of how it would have to be carried out absolutely abhorrent. As does the world, in general, by the way, which is why that type of warfare is "illegal". You never answered any of my questions. Maybe you should "try thinking deeper". Is it ok for soldiers to go about the streets killing women, children, the elderly, the mentally handicapped, the mentally unwell, etc. (hope I didn't leave anyone out, but I'm sure you'll let me know)? Do you think intentionally killing tens of thousands of non-combatants for the sake of "terror killing" will actually shorten a war that is for the hearts and minds, or do you think it will only create so many more future terrorists and turn world opinion against Israel? I cannot believe I'm even engaging in an argument with someone who is proposing we murder tens of thousands in "terror killings" (your words).

Another straw man argument. I never said we could only kill 3000 enemy because that's what we lost. Wtf are you talking about?

Listen, I'm tired of defending shit I didn't say from people here. If you want to debate me with logic... great! Argue against the logic I'm actually using. Don't just use logical fallacy after logical fallacy, while calling me the immature one (another logical fallacy). Let’s either have a grown up debate, or let's not waste our time on here.

First, where in my post I attack you? That said, you need to understand that you aren’t applying logic, you are responding with emotion. I get it, you don’t like the disproportionately of war, but that is what it all about - and yes - every war in human history is the same.

Second, I don’t think you actually read the Orwell article, or seriously though about what I actually wrote - and you simply must stop trying to use comparative morality in your argument - people have don’t have any control over what a soldier (or airman) does at war, people only have control at the end if they are the victors.

Third, I did not call you immature, I said your assertions were immature. That word is designed to imply that your academic skills, world view, and/or some other process haven’t developed enough to make a similar argument in a better way. There are certain topics where I have immature ideas (assertions) because I lack the experience to know better - and yes I have made such assertions here on AW. If I thought you were being childish I would have called you a child (that’s the nice me) or an ass, or idiot - all words I’ve used somewhere on AW.

Lastly, and this might sting a bit, you really need to learn what a straw-man argument actually is. You decry the deaths of civilians to kill a single terrorist but then wonder why someone might use the 9/11 (a recent enough event) death toll as a measure to ask how many people a nation does get to kill to destroy those who attacked in the first place.

But, just so we are perfectly clear, there is no morality in war. On side can kill 3000 civilians with a handful of Hellfires while another needs two airliners to do the same - in the end the dead are all equally…dead. How they got there isn’t all that important. Here’s a small thought exercise for you (no need to respond, just consider it). What is the bedrock of your morality (when at war)? In other words, where does it come from, what is its genesis?

 

[hscs]

Am I a CAS guru? Absolutely not. But I am qualified and know that destroying a 6 story apartment complex to kill 1 room is a case of bringing a JDAM to a hellfire fight and a dgaf attitude. Am I wrong?

Not that this shit is even CAS, which is even more to my point. They have other options. Wait until the assholes are in a car. Use ground forces. Use a hellfire in the room. Don't just level the building full of civilians. It's unnecessary.

Please stop. This is embarrassing.

 

[Mirage]

First, where in my post I attack you? That said, you need to understand that you aren’t applying logic, you are responding with emotion. I get it, you don’t like the disproportionately of war, but that is what it all about - and yes - every war in human history is the same.

Griz, if I'm not responding with logic, then my questions should be easy to answer and my argument easily defeated. Why do you refuse to address my argument other than calling it immature or broadly brushing it away with statements like there is no morality in war?

Answer me... if it's ok to intentionally kill thousands of civilians solely to inflict terror on the population, then was the Hamas attack justified and moral? Would it be ok for soldiers to carry out the killing with bullets, or does killing with bombs somehow make it moral? Do you think if Israel started carpet bombing the population hubs like we did in Dresden, such "terror killing" in your words would help Israel achieve it's desired end state?

Lastly, and this might sting a bit, you really need to learn what a straw-man argument actually is. You decry the deaths of civilians to kill a single terrorist but then wonder why someone might use the 9/11 (a recent enough event) death toll as a measure to ask how many people a nation does get to kill to destroy those who attacked in the first place.

Griz, I never said anything even close to that Israel can only kill as many people as they lost. Not even close. Hamas killed 1400 or so, but Israel can kill every last one of the 10,000+ Hamas militants and I'd be thrilled. A straw man argument is when you make my argument something it is not, and then try to attack the straw man you've built. You did it multiple times in your previous post, including this nonsense about 9/11.

But, just so we are perfectly clear, there is no morality in war. On side can kill 3000 civilians with a handful of Hellfires while another needs two airliners to do the same - in the end the dead are all equally…dead. How they got there isn’t all that important. Here’s a small thought exercise for you (no need to respond, just consider it). What is the bedrock of your morality (when at war)? In other words, where does it come from, what is its genesis?

No morality in war? Perhaps you should tell that to the designers of the Geneva Convention, the UN, the governments of every Western democracy, and everyone who has ever taught or enforced the LOAC. Again, was Hamas' attack not immoral? Would it not be immoral for Russia to carpet bomb Kiev tomorrow? Why have world governments banned things like chemical warfare and torture, and created the laws like attacks must adhere to principles of proportionality?

I strongly disagree with you. It would be immoral for us to go about intentionally killing civilians, just as it was for Hamas to do the same.

 

[Hotdogs]

But I am qualified and know that destroying a 6 story apartment complex to kill 1 room is a case of bringing a JDAM to a hellfire fight and a dgaf attitude. Am I wrong?

Unsat. Recommend 2 x ETs, ready room confessional, and a refly.

Let’s break down the nuance that you’re missing in your very basic scenario. I won’t go into the CDE process. If I can find a basic unclass CDE flowchart - I’ll share it. They’re hard to find because typically each JTF and/or COCOM has its own considerations, mission, and commanders intent/guidance. They also change based on specific JSOAs or AOs. (Any Armed UAS dude in Creech can attest to having to grasp different ROE and CDE concerns as they switch locations routinely).

Military Necessity
Article 52, Geneva Convention, Protocol 1: “Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives” and “military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action.”

In the above quote, the “5-story building” is irrelevant, but more so its function in the battlespace. A room full of terrorists utilizing it as a defensive position clearly meets this metric. However, this alone doesn’t mean the building is completely targetable, which leads me into the next concept: Porportionality.

Proportionality:
Military action shall “refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects or combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the military advantage gained”

This concept implies that all military action should analyze the objective relative to the expected loss of life and destruction created. I.e. A 5-story building with 1 room of terrorists hiding AND a building full of civilians vs A 5-story building serving as a logistical node and with a room full of terrorists conducting a complex ambush on a company of soldiers? Completely different situations. Is it a marked ambulance that is dual use serving as an armed troop transport? or legitimate medical evacuation? It has nothing to do with the type of munitions involved. Although it is consideration during the CDE process, however low-collateral damage munitions are not required to satisfy the Geneva convention or LOAC.

Similar analogies in the Gulf War came out about utilizing M2 .50 cal as disproportionate - which were completely unfounded. That also became the topic of another concept - unnecessary suffering.

Unnecessary Suffering
This principle requires signatories to avoid superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering resulting from the use of force. A 5 Story building being leveled by a JDAM vice being breached with small arms and direct attack munitions has no implication to this principle. Harms or injury by pyrotechnics (WP), CBRN usage, and/or cluster munitions are routinely cited as violations of this law. In addition to the indiscriminate nature, these weapons cause suffering due to their design and impact on human life. This is probably the only area where some valid concerns for Israel regarding WP munitions have arisen. However, Israel has gone to great length to warn and allow civilians to evacuate combat areas for fear of excessive causalities. Hamas preventing the departure of non-combatants to use as human shields is well documented and is a violation of the LOAC. The U.S. and some NATO countries at times utilize cluster munitions and pyrotechnics during conflict.

Distinction
“In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose, or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization, in the circumstance ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage” (Art. 52)
This principle in your scenario the 5-story building probably served a purpose as either a defensive position, C2 node, or logistical hub. However, you never stated the purpose of said building which calls into question your actual understanding of LOAC and CDE. If the building served no purpose and it was a room full of unidentified military aged males sipping tea - then we would have no level of distinction. Again, the structure, type, design, cultural, religious, or historical nature of the building is irrelevant. It is why it is legal to attack hospitals or mosques that are utilized for military purposes. The circumstances at the time is also important. Battlefield commanders are operating during the fog of war, and due to the confusion and lack of intelligence can commit what appears to be violations of the LOAC, but are still cleared afterwards. Same situation applies to Marines or soldiers standing at checkpoints when escalation of force procedures fail and time-critical life or death decisions are made without full understanding.

I won’t even get into your comment about CAS vs DAS (or any other type of surface to air actions) because it is irrelevant. LOAC and CDE considerations still apply.

I rest my case that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

 

[Brett327]

Am I a CAS guru? Absolutely not. But I am qualified and know that destroying a 6 story apartment complex to kill 1 room is a case of bringing a JDAM to a hellfire fight and a dgaf attitude. Am I wrong?

Not that this shit is even CAS, which is even more to my point. They have other options. Wait until the assholes are in a car. Use ground forces. Use a hellfire in the room. Don't just level the building full of civilians. It's unnecessary.

Great, just wanted to establish your baseline experience level so everyone can weight your opinion accordingly.

 

[Mirage]

Great, just wanted to establish your baseline experience level so everyone can weight your opinion accordingly.

So no desire to contribute to the actual debate and tell my how my analysis is wrong? Just more ad hominem logical fallacies from you too?

 

[sevenhelmet]

So no desire to contribute to the actual debate and tell my how my analysis is wrong? Just more ad hominem logical fallacies from you too?

What did Brett say that was a logical fallacy?

Been reading this thread with interest, but I think you need to take a few deep breaths. Remember that this is an Internet forum- we aren’t going to actually solve anything here.

 

[Brett327]

So no desire to contribute to the actual debate and tell my how my analysis is wrong? Just more ad hominem logical fallacies from you too?

My contribution to the debate is to establish what level of credibility/judgement/reasoning we should ascribe to someone with zero experience in real world CAS or CDE who is attempting to argue the finer points of a topic with those who have actual expertise. I think that's absolutely germane to the discussion.

Also, please diagram my post, labeling the ad hominem and logical fallacies. You like to throw these terms around, but I'm not convinced that you understand what those things actually are.

 

[ChuckMK23]

One of my favorite passages from the Heinlein (USNA class of 1929) epic novel Starship Troopers : Germane to this conversation I believe...

 

[Mirage]

What did Brett say that was a logical fallacy?

Been reading this thread with interest, but I think you need to take a few deep breaths. Remember that this is an Internet forum- we aren’t going to actually solve anything here.

My contribution to the debate is to establish what level of credibility/judgement/reasoning we should ascribe to someone with zero experience in real world CAS or CDE who is attempting to argue the finer points of a topic with those who have actual expertise. I think that's absolutely germane to the discussion.

Also, please diagram my post, labeling the ad hominem and logical fallacies. You like to throw these terms around, but I'm not convinced that you understand what those things actually are.

Happy to.

Ad Hominem definition: (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

I am arguing that Israel did not need to level a 6 story apartment complex to kill 1 room full of people. Instead of attacking that logic, you are attacking me, by saying I do not have the experience required to make that assessment so therefore the assessment must be wrong. That is a logical fallacy. Pretty clear.

Additionally, you are also acting like that is CAS, when it's not, and now accusing me of "attempting to argue the finer points of the topic (CAS)" when I am not.

Tell me, wise strike masters. Have you ever leveled an entire apartment complex full of known civilians to kill 1 room of baddies? If not, why do you think that is? Please, enlighten me with the logic of how that is necessary!

 

[Brett327]

Happy to.

Ad Hominem definition: (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

Here's the thing... I'm not attacking you as a person, I'm impugning the validity of your assertion that there's some magical ratio of civilian casualties to enemy casualties beyond which friendly forces cannot consider attacking. That idea is not just false from a legal standpoint, but it also flies in the face of more than 20 years of warfare that people in this thread have direct experience in.

It's worth reiterating that you yourself have exactly zero experience in making these kinds of CDE decisions. Zero. It's not an ad hominem attack to point out that in the spectrum of real world experience, you rank dead last among other more credible people posting in this thread. Let's be perfectly frank, you've skated through whatever portion for the GWOT you happened to show up for without so much as ever pulling the trigger on your weapons system, yet you feel justified in lecturing those who have spent the majority of their careers doing just that.

This thread presented you with an opportunity to learn from those with expertise that you lack; expertise that you will never have. Instead, you've turned this into a case study in the Dunning Kruger effect. Par for the course.

 

[Griz882]

Griz, if I'm not responding with logic, then my questions should be easy to answer and my argument easily defeated. Why do you refuse to address my argument other than calling it immature or broadly brushing it away with statements like there is no morality in war?

Answer me... if it's ok to intentionally kill thousands of civilians solely to inflict terror on the population, then was the Hamas attack justified and moral? Would it be ok for soldiers to carry out the killing with bullets, or does killing with bombs somehow make it moral? Do you think if Israel started carpet bombing the population hubs like we did in Dresden, such "terror killing" in your words would help Israel achieve it's desired end state?


Griz, I never said anything even close to that Israel can only kill as many people as they lost. Not even close. Hamas killed 1400 or so, but Israel can kill every last one of the 10,000+ Hamas militants and I'd be thrilled. A straw man argument is when you make my argument something it is not, and then try to attack the straw man you've built. You did it multiple times in your previous post, including this nonsense about 9/11.

No morality in war? Perhaps you should tell that to the designers of the Geneva Convention, the UN, the governments of every Western democracy, and everyone who has ever taught or enforced the LOAC. Again, was Hamas' attack not immoral? Would it not be immoral for Russia to carpet bomb Kiev tomorrow? Why have world governments banned things like chemical warfare and torture, and created the laws like attacks must adhere to principles of proportionality?

I strongly disagree with you. It would be immoral for us to go about intentionally killing civilians, just as it was for Hamas to do the same.

1. In my opinion it is never “ok” to intentionally kill anyone. My opinion, so you know, is informed from a lifetime of Judeo-Christian shaped culture/education (basically American culture).
2. Dead is dead…there is zero difference between bullet, bomb, or disease.
4. The use of carpet bombing, atomic bombing, airliner, or any tactic designed to scare (or “terrorize”) an enemy is based on strategic necessity, not emotional morality. The correct question is - Does Israel need to carpet bomb Gaza to reach their objective?
5. I’m sorry you can’t grasp what I am trying to say by using 9/11 as an example. Perhaps it is the nature of an online discussion.

Now, read the following carefully and please think about what I am actually saying…

When I drive my car down I-95 I travel (like most others around me) at about 75 mph. What I’m doing is illegal and thus immoral in a perfect world. Still, I do it and so too do many of my human drivers because I measure need, cause, effect, and so on. Now, while I am driving along I spot a state trooper on the side of the road, his flashing lights off. So, I do what NEARLY all of my other fellow citizens do…I tap the breaks to slow down. Once past the cop, I go back to my immoral speed, as do my fellow drivers. Now, the cop isn’t an idiot…he can look out his window and easily see a whole bunch of people slowing down, to meet the intent of the law. He has even provided occasional warnings to us in the way of speed limit signs. Now he has to decide if he’ll pursue or let so it slide. If pursuit is way, the trooper has to decide of his pursuit is safe, will it endanger other people, and/or will the situation escalate?

In this parable…
1. I am a nation (or organization) at war. I base my actions on my strategic and tactical needs, causes, effects, and so on.

2. The speed limit signs AND the brakes on my car are the Geneva Convention. They function as a mechanism, not a morality. They have no philosophy, but they are there so that I can slow down, or even stop, if needed. One is a warning, the other allows me to adjust my proportionally.

3. The trooper is a global military power, capable of engaging those who refuse to use their breaks to slow down. But more than that, they determine when it is the right time to flip on those lights.

That’s all there is to it. We define the limits (typically through a mix of cultural morality and legal frameworks) and then decide when it might be OK to push those limits.

 

[sevenhelmet]

1. In my opinion it is never “ok” to intentionally kill anyone. My opinion, so you know, is informed from a lifetime of Judeo-Christian shaped culture/education (basically American culture).
2. Dead is dead…there is zero difference between bullet, bomb, or disease.
4. The use of carpet bombing, atomic bombing, airliner, or any tactic designed to scare (or “terrorize”) an enemy is based on strategic necessity, not emotional morality. The correct question is - Does Israel need to carpet bomb Gaza to reach their objective?
5. I’m sorry you can’t grasp what I am trying to say by using 9/11 as an example. Perhaps it is the nature of an online discussion.

Now, read the following carefully and please think about what I am actually saying…

When I drive my car down I-95 I travel (like most others around me) at about 75 mph. What I’m doing is illegal and thus immoral in a perfect world. Still, I do it and so too do many of my human drivers because I measure need, cause, effect, and so on. Now, while I am driving along I spot a state trooper on the side of the road, his flashing lights off. So, I do what NEARLY all of my other fellow citizens do…I tap the breaks to slow down. Once past the cop, I go back to my immoral speed, as do my fellow drivers. Now, the cop isn’t an idiot…he can look out his window and easily see a whole bunch of people slowing down, to meet the intent of the law. He has even provided occasional warnings to us in the way of speed limit signs. Now he has to decide if he’ll pursue or let so it slide. If pursuit is way, the trooper has to decide of his pursuit is safe, will it endanger other people, and/or will the situation escalate?

In this parable…
1. I am a nation (or organization) at war. I base my actions on my strategic and tactical needs, causes, effects, and so on.

2. The speed limit signs AND the brakes on my car are the Geneva Convention. They function as a mechanism, not a morality. They have no philosophy, but they are there so that I can slow down, or even stop, if needed. One is a warning, the other allows me to adjust my proportionally.

3. The trooper is a global military power, capable of engaging those who refuse to use their breaks to slow down. But more than that, they determine when it is the right time to flip on those lights.

That’s all there is to it. We define the limits (typically through a mix of cultural morality and legal frameworks) and then decide when it might be OK to push those limits.

Whew.

Lots to unpack in this thread, and a good bit I disagree with. For starters, you completely overlooked the human suffering aspect of warfare, which can be very germane to the outcome. Dead is dead, but how you get there can affect quite a lot. Human cost isn’t just a body count.

Efforts to limit human suffering often blunt the instrument of war and- ironically- often result in more drawn-out wars and worse outcomes. Having said that, consideration for human values is precisely what should separate us from our enemies. We value life, they kill because they enjoy it. Where it gets squishy is “Do we kill X number of people to prevent Y amount of suffering?” Particularly when X and Y are probably unknowable in the moment.

Fundamentally, the object of war is not to inflict terror on a populace, but achieve a political objective for which all other efforts have failed, or- as in Israel’s case- to defend the homeland. As such, I think their actions are justified in order to neutralize the threat. Hamas- as a typical terrorist group- is doing everything it can to make Israel look bad, and using the population of Gaza as a pawn and a human shield in order to do so.

Realistically, I don’t think Israel is likely to succeeed in destroying Hamas. Terror groups are like weeds. There is always some asshole willing to convert, or start a new chapter of their own. Israel can and should fight to depose Hamas from power, and institute a solution that prevents terror groups from rising to power again. I personally think a two-state solution brokered by the UN might be the way to go- IF and only if they are willing to ensure that a terrorist organization isn’t leading the future Palestinian state. Hypothetically, that leadership could institute a rule of law that would limit the rise of terrorism.

Because what has been done in the past isn’t working.

 

[Griz882]

Whew.

Lots to unpack in this thread, and a good bit I disagree with. For starters, you completely overlooked the human suffering aspect of warfare, which can be very germane to the outcome. Dead is dead, but how you get there can affect quite a lot. Human cost isn’t just a body count.

Efforts to limit human suffering often blunt the instrument of war and- ironically- often result in more drawn-out wars and worse outcomes. Having said that, consideration for human values is precisely what should separate us from our enemies. We value life, they kill because they enjoy it. Where it gets squishy is “Do we kill X number of people to prevent Y amount of suffering?” Particularly when X and Y are probably unknowable in the moment.

Fundamentally, the object of war is not to inflict terror on a populace, but achieve a political objective for which all other efforts have failed, or- as in Israel’s case- to defend the homeland. As such, I think their actions are justified in order to neutralize the threat. Hamas, as a typical terrorist group- is doing everything it can to make Israel look bad, and using the population of Gaza as a pawn and a human shield in order to do so.

Realistically, I don’t think Israel is likely to succeeed in destroying Hamas. Terror groups are like weeds. There is always some asshole willing to convert, or start a new chapter of their own. Israel can and should fight to depose Hamas from power, and institute a solution that prevents terror groups from rising to power again. I personally think a two-state solution brokered by the UN might be the way to go- IF and only if they are willing to ensure that a terrorist organization isn’t leading the future Palestinian state.

Believe it or not, we don’t disagree at all. The problem we keep running into is personal morality vs. the rules of armed conflict vs. strategic and tactical need. You did a fantastic job in an earlier post about the ROE. Those are guard rails that allowed me to work within a framework that considers my personal morality, international rules of armed conflict, AND my nation’s strategic and tactical needs.

Frankly I despise war, it used me up and spit me out. There is no such thing as a “good” war. But, war is an important tool in global order (or disorder) and it does no good to point ghostly moralistic fingers at one side or the other WHILE they prosecute their part of the issue. Immediate right and wrong will be measured by national law (we, the US, have jailed a few war criminals, some recently), international norms (think Milivoj Petkovic, a Bosnian in prison for for crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing), and finally over-and-over again by history (think Dresden and the A-Bombs). Still, when the bullets are flying, you can only hope your personal morality can hold.

 

[Mirage]

Here's the thing... I'm not attacking you as a person, I'm impugning the validity of your assertion that there's some magical ratio of civilian casualties to enemy casualties beyond which friendly forces cannot consider attacking. That idea is not just false from a legal standpoint, but it also flies in the face of more than 20 years of warfare that people in this thread have direct experience in.

It's worth reiterating that you yourself have exactly zero experience in making these kinds of CDE decisions. Zero. It's not an ad hominem attack to point out that in the spectrum of real world experience, you rank dead last among other more credible people posting in this thread. Let's be perfectly frank, you've skated through whatever portion for the GWOT you happened to show up for without so much as ever pulling the trigger on your weapons system, yet you feel justified in lecturing those who have spent the majority of their careers doing just that.

This thread presented you with an opportunity to learn from those with expertise that you lack; expertise that you will never have. Instead, you've turned this into a case study in the Dunning Kruger effect. Par for the course.

Brett, I have been making moral argument that the way Israel is "indiscriminately bombing" Gaza is immoral (to borrow POTUS' verbiage, which I'm sure he borrowed from a briefing). You are trying to make this about my CAS expertise, and it's just not. Aside from that, I've repeatedly asked you to provide insight from your strike and CDE experience, and attempted to provide none of my own. You've refused to answer my questions.

Now you're building another straw man, saying I've said there's a magical ratio of civilian to combatant casualties that's necessary to achieve. That's not what I've said or believe. Whether Israel is violating LOAC is for a court to decide. I'm arguing what they've done is immoral, and beyond that just a bad decision strategically, as they are rapidly turning world opinion against themselves. That has nothing to do with my lack of strike experience. If you choose to attack my credibility rather than my reasoning, that is the definition of an ad hominem.

If my position is so wrong, and you're so eager to share knowledge with me that you've so far refused to share, then answer my previous questions. Or, tell me... Why has Biden characterized Israeli bombing as indiscriminate? Why did SECDEF recently say,

"But democracies like ours are stronger and more secure when we uphold the law of war. So we will continue to press Israel to protect civilians and to ensure the robust flow of humanitarian aid.

First and foremost, that’s the right thing to do. But it’s also good strategy.

You know, I learned a thing or two about urban warfare from my time fighting in Iraq and leading the campaign to defeat ISIS.

Like Hamas, ISIS was deeply embedded in urban areas. And the international coalition against ISIS worked hard to protect civilians and create humanitarian corridors, even during the toughest battles.

So the lesson is not that you can win in urban warfare by protecting civilians. The lesson is that you can only win in urban warfare by protecting civilians.

You see, in this kind of a fight, the center of gravity is the civilian population. And if you drive them into the arms of the enemy, you replace a tactical victory with a strategic defeat."