Listen: American Army, Taliban, Israeli Army discussed on The Tel Aviv Review
"That's whatever's is, that's why it's a politics that we have to oppose even if we support the national liberation of juries, or Palestinians or whoever, for Kurds. But, you know. Terrorists to reform and become thesis state actors can few pools the IRA or even a vacant? We're not taking ES. They have to I be defeated. Yes, but you raise the issue of asymmetric warfare, when, when we have a, I tech army, like the American army, or the idea of fighting against a Motech insurgency, like the Taliban or HAMAs, and so far in modern history, the high tech army doesn't win. That is a major problem because some of these wars, the high tech army was the right should have one was. Right. Was fighting on the right for the right cause. And that forces us to think about asymmetric warfare as a politics as well. A military, even a bigger problem is the fact that terrorism makes boundaries disappear warfare and civilian life. The militants are so embedded in a moment, civilians, that really makes the whole notion of military intervention puts it in completely different life not completely different. The issue is still. How do you have you fight? In ways that minimize civilian casualties. Have you fight in ways that minimize the risks that he were imposing on, on civilians? And this is. This is an argument in the US army, and in the idea, and the crucial question for this kind of war. The crucial moral question is what risks do we ask our soldiers to accept in order to avoid to reduce the risks? They impose on enemy civilians who are being used as cover by enemy soldiers or militants, and that's a very, very hard question. And, and it is comes up in internal debate. In the army's crucial army that are fighting these kinds of wars are the US army, and the Israeli army, and these, these armies are debating this question. Can I? Let me give you an example, from the American war Afghanistan. Which I was told I was given this example by Colonel, but just back from Afghanistan at the army war. College in Pennsylvania. And this was right after general mcchrystal had announced the new rules of engagement for American soldiers in Afghanistan. So imagine this happened often an American army unit gross fire from the roof of a small apartment building in an Afghan town. The Taliban is on the roof. They don't know who is the building. What do you do Colonel said to me in the old days before the new rules of engagement, the soldiers would just pulled back and call it the air force, and blasts the to attack the Taliban on the roof? And destroy the apartment. The new rules of engagement say you can't do. So what are the alternatives? Well, you can cry to get a scout into the building to see if there are families in their if it's empty then you could call in there for. Or you could try to get soldiers onto an adjoining roof who can fire directly at the Taliban on without injuring people in the building. But both of those are more risque for your here's whereas calling the strike doesn't isn't risque for any of your soldiers, but very risky for civilians, if there is a billions in, in the building, and the new US rules of engagement at that time. This is twenty eleven. Required. The soldiers to take the additional. And the same argument, and there was protests. The New York Times reporters spoke to soldiers on the ground who said, we don't wanna fight under these rules. They make it to danger, some soldiers said that other soldiers this was the right thing to do in the same arguments go on the Israeli army, and that question it's not an easy question. Because the Solters our kid.."