Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site wivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!wivax!tackett
From: tackett@wivax.UUCP (Raymond Tackett)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: BIG guns
Message-ID: <19213@wivax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 16-Feb-84 13:18:46 EST
Article-I.D.: wivax.19213
Posted: Thu Feb 16 13:18:46 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Feb-84 06:22:23 EST
References: <105@iwlc3.UUCP> <853@hao.UUCP>, <635@ihuxp.UUCP>
Organization: Wang Institute, Tyngsboro, Ma.  01879
Lines: 30

The basic problem in Lebanon is identical to the one that gave us
all the grief in Viet Nam.

Military force can execute exactly one process which consists of taking
territory and eliminating or subjugating those who were holding it.  
Unfortunately, this process is sometimes necessary (e.g., WWII).

However, the "peacekeeping" (read "target") force in Lebanon had no
such objective.  In a shooting war it is not possible to put on a
black and white striped shirt and whistle the play to a stop.

If the military had been given a goal like elimination of the "X" 
forces, it could have done so efficiently.  How does one go about
keeping the peace while multiple groups with unclear identities are
running around shooting at each other?  By camping somewhere in the 
middle (as the Marines did)?

We worry about nuclear war as irreversible extermination.  Let's try
to equate that to any kind of military force.  The military cannot
negotiate, enforce peace, prop up politically expedient dictators, or
defend against sucide attacks.  If you choose to use military force,
you must have but one purpose -- kicking ass.  If you can't figure out
which ass to kick, or don't want to kick it hard, don't use the military.


-- 
/////\\\\\
 \ \  / /          From the brightly colored, ever opening 'chute
   \  /                                of
   NOID                            Ray Tackett