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