Alumbrado
Posts: 5560
Status: offline
|
It is a popular belief that there is a moral relativism to tactics of war. One time honored approach to war is to get a bigger army and better weapons and go take what you want. When that was the predominant model, those with smaller armies or outmoded equipment no doubt complained about the unfairness and immorality of being conquered. Another approach for those who don't have the bigger army or better weapons is to use guerrilla tactics to stop the first group. ala the Vietnamese War for Independence, and the American Revolution. Again the loser may suggest that there was something 'wrong' about the tactics of the successful guerrilla fighters. Nowadays, even the most regimented military force is standardized to operate both in, and against guerrilla mode...So what is left for those without that option? The next rung in the tactical ladder...do something that will guarantee front page coverage all over the world, and then try to spin public opinion through propaganda and debate tactics. That 'something' can be taking high profile hostages, using human shields on one's positions, or it can be strapping some explosives to a child sent into a marketplace. Again, those who are the recipient of such tactics will characterize them as horrible...which is exactly why they get the talking points of the side that uses them all over the media. Without the media's sensationalistic credo 'IIBIL', the tactic of terrorism would be chosen far less often. In response to the OP question, yes Palestine has benefited greatly from the application of terrorist tactics...without them their version of the story would never have gained the credibility it enjoys today..and with credibility comes money, materials, and other support.... and ultimately leverage. Anyone who want to argue that the choice of one tactic of war cover another is more moral than the next is welcome to do so.
< Message edited by Alumbrado -- 6/10/2008 5:05:04 PM >
|