69 million page views

What About Gaza? What About State-Sponsors?

Reader comment on item: How Much Can Air Power Achieve?

Submitted by Alex (United States), Apr 6, 2015 at 16:42

Dr. Pipes comments are as edifying as ever, but I would raise two objections:

1) What of those instances--say, the recent Israeli use of ground forces into Gaza for Operation Protective Edge last Summer--where infantry and cavalry did not acheive or even aim for victory?

2) What of a place like Falluja, Iraq, where US ground forces in late 2004 were able to retake a terrorist stronghold, yet which today remains a hotbed for jihadists? Wouldn't attacking state-sponsors of terrorism with conventional force--even just major airstrikes on key industrial and military sites--be a more effective way to end insurgency as a threat beyond the very acute immediate theater where it is based? My idea would be to have the US strike say, an Iranian Qods-force base inside Iran every time we find proof of Iranian complicity in attacking US interests, with the condtion that Iran could only avoid more such incidents if it killed or handed over any anti-American operatives known to be present where an insurgent attack took place, or any plotting such attacks in the future.

Submitting....

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".

Submit a comment on this item

Reader comments (24) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
Air strikes will not work [174 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
PrashantJun 5, 2015 13:41223694
where is this going? [60 words]FrankzApr 9, 2015 00:21222770
1Not quite accurate [164 words]yuvalApr 8, 2015 05:11222749
1Winning is possible [83 words]BamagujeApr 10, 2015 21:09222749
Accuracy Limited in Horseshoes, Hand Grenades and Nuclear Ambitions [302 words]M. ToveyApr 17, 2015 15:24222749
Ho-hum again. [282 words]Michael SMay 1, 2015 19:58222749
The Hum of Running Silent- Running Deep [323 words]M. ToveyMay 6, 2015 13:05222749
It really is ho-hum lately. Caliphate not radical enough? [230 words]Michael SMay 7, 2015 21:45222749
Marxist Leadership of the West in Agreement With Marxist Papacy-Aire Superiority of a Different Sortie [107 words]M. ToveyMay 13, 2015 15:30222749
Mom and Apple Pie [528 words]Michael SMay 15, 2015 04:32222749
Mowing the Grass [434 words]Michael SMay 29, 2015 03:53222749
Control of Gaza is a chimera [28 words]BG DavisJun 29, 2015 14:05222749
Air war [32 words]WallyApr 6, 2015 23:33222697
What's the end-game, if survival is the issue? [166 words]JIMJFOXApr 6, 2015 22:50222693
1Dan is right but only for conventional air power [134 words]YususfApr 6, 2015 21:33222690
Israel can eliminate Iran's threat, using conventional weapons. [161 words]Michael SMay 15, 2015 12:19222690
1Also, unstable dictatorships prefer to use air forces [169 words]John in Michigan, USAApr 6, 2015 18:20222689
Wars and relativism. [76 words]steven LApr 6, 2015 17:01222687
What About Gaza? What About State-Sponsors? [178 words]AlexApr 6, 2015 16:42222686
Continuous Warfare [161 words]Michael SApr 6, 2015 16:14222685
Vietnam bombing ? [27 words]KaiserDerdenApr 6, 2015 15:49222683
Air Superiority Does Not Ensure Conquest - For it is the Expensive (Therefore Limited) Option [353 words]M. ToveyApr 6, 2015 15:38222681
settled long ago [79 words]Larry SeltzerApr 6, 2015 15:25222680
Of course [85 words]Lars NielsenApr 6, 2015 15:17222677

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to What About Gaza? What About State-Sponsors? by Alex

Email me if someone replies to my comment

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".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)