To win or to loose, a question of objectives.

Submitted by Jon, a Brit in Euroland (France), Sep 15, 2008 at 08:42

As has already been pointed out on this thread, although not by the distinguished Israeli general (surprise surprise) the "non state entities" have, normally got their supplies and weapons from someone. Interdicting these supplies, with the sophisticated 1st world weapons of drone, and sas people on the ground is obviously key. This would logically have the effect of decreasing the intensity of battle, reducing collateral casualties, and therefore making the fight more acceptable over the term it might have to run to achieve victory by the discouragement of aggression, or conflicts within the aggressor camp.

The effective use of bribery in creating treacherous behavior in the aggressor camp has also, it seems to me, to be used actively, once supplies are interdicted, because it is cost effective. Each missile costs hundreds of thousands of USD, and such sums can be very considerable for a middle level operative. The use of bribery, which should be well known, will also create defensive irrational behavior on the part of operative, making it easier to identify them, and therefore kill them.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".