'Disproportionate' in What Moral Universe?

[Solid]

Air power is highly effective against a large number of targets in terms of its destructive force. However, the Israelis have used airpower against targets such as power plants, water nexi, and other structures which primarily contribute to civilian life. This suggests that they are engaging in coercive bombing: through the rapid degrading of living standards for civilians, the Israelis are attempting to make the Lebanese vocally unhappy with Hizbollah's decision to allow rocketting and keep the kidnapped soldiers.

Data extracted from all major bombing campaigns from WW2 onwards demonstrates that coervice bombing generally does exactly the opposite to this: precision strikes such as those Israel is engaging in tend to turn the Lebanese further against Israel, as opposed to making them frustrated with Hizbollah. This defeats at least one strategic purpose of the bombing. I have several friends in Lebanon right now (non-arab/lebanese, one a foreign military officer). They report that the initial reaction to Hizbollah's ambush and rocket attacks was one of outrage- many lebanese did not want Hizbollah acting so stupidly and aggressively. Following Israeli strategic bombing, however, these people now tend to support Hizbollah's decisions. The bombings united the people with the government as opposed to forcing a split.

In terms of alterior methods, I believe that sticking to the precision bombing of Hizbollah targets (as opposed to civilian ones) would have allowed Israel to apply pressure to the regime, while still nurturing the anti-hizbollah feelings that initially resulted from the ambush and rocket attacks. Substituting those air-attacks with artillery shelling or boots on the ground would either lead to more civilian casualties, or over-expose the israeli military forces.

As I said before, I support Israeli use of force in this situation (there was no other alternative), and absolutely disagree that Israel is using 'disproporationate' force. Furthermore, their attempts at interdiction (bombing roads to Syria, hitting the airport) were IMO astute. However, I think that their use of coercive bombing is counterproductive to both the short and long term strategic objectives Israel is pursuing in regards to Lebanon. Namely, the short-term release of hostages and cessation of rocket attacks/ support for terrorism, and the long-term replacement of Hizbollah with a less aggressive and anti-Israeli regime.

JMO,

Solid

[tk27]

Originally Posted by Solid

As I said before, I support Israeli use of force in this situation (there was no other alternative), and absolutely disagree that Israel is using 'disproporationate' force. Furthermore, their attempts at interdiction (bombing roads to Syria, hitting the airport) were IMO astute. However, I think that their use of coercive bombing is counterproductive to both the short and long term strategic objectives Israel is pursuing in regards to Lebanon. Namely, the short-term release of hostages and cessation of rocket attacks/ support for terrorism, and the long-term replacement of Hizbollah with a less aggressive and anti-Israeli regime.

Agree, effects based operations only work when the goal of the coercion is in the capability of the targeted state. The state of Lebanon has little influence on Israel's short term goals, in that it appears they have little influence over Hezbollah. EBO's are successful in effecting a state to abandon a policy, not to get them to proactively act. Attacking systems undermines the state, this is weakening Lebanon and is, like Solid said, counterproductive to long term objectives.

Of related interest: Air Power Won't Do It, By Philip H. Gordon. The Washington Post, July 25, 2006