
Why Militaries Destroy Cities to Save Them - jspencer508
https://mwi.usma.edu/militaries-must-destroy-cities-save/
======
roenxi
There were a lot of interesting factiods in this article, but it didn't come
together for me into a cohesive piece.

The US has no honorable reason for being in the Middle East - if it did, it
would also have invaded large chunks of Africa, probably North Korea, Saudi
Arabia wouldn't be a US ally and maybe send some troops into a few well chosen
South American countries for good measure. The world is horrible, and it is
highly suspicious that the Middle East was the first mob in need of 'saving'.

With that observation as a premise, it is questionable that the US military is
reporting their objectives honestly. I think I can keep track of who the
current bad guys are, but I can't keep track of which ones were US allies or
created by US adventures over the past 20 years.

If the take-away is the US military would be more effective with flamethrowers
then that makes sense to me. If the argument is that they are struggling to
achieve their objectives in the Middle East then I assume they are lying about
what they are trying to achieve.

~~~
coldtea
> _The US has no honorable reason for being in the Middle East - if it did, it
> would also have invaded large chunks of Africa, probably North Korea, Saudi
> Arabia wouldn 't be a US ally and maybe send some troops into a few well
> chosen South American countries for good measure. The world is horrible, and
> it is highly suspicious that the Middle East was the first mob in need of
> 'saving'._

Not only that -- for this assumes that it's ok that the world should have some
"savior" state, and even more so, a self-proclaimed one -- as opposed to
sovereign countries solving their own problems.

~~~
Jedi72
This is a tough one. If Nazi's hadnt tried to expand their borders, but still
kept killing all the jews in Germany, is that a sovereign country solving its
own problems?

~~~
rawTruthHurts
Well, yes it is. Ask the cambodians or the chinese.

~~~
fit2rule
.. or the Australians.

------
bigmonads
Articles written in the US about the US military destroying cities to "save
them" are always positive like this.

Compare that to American media coverage of ISIS's "Management of Savagery"
(e.g. [https://www.cnn.com/2015/11/14/opinions/paris-attacks-
isis-s...](https://www.cnn.com/2015/11/14/opinions/paris-attacks-isis-
strategy/index.html)) in which essentially the same strategy of destruction,
rebuilding, and recivilization is described as 'the end goal is to inflict
significant political, economic and social consequences through "savagery"' (a
complete misunderstanding of the tactic, if not a purposeful fabrication).

Simply put: this is not a strategy for "saving cities or people". That drinks
directly from the propaganda line. It's merely a tactic for gaining control of
a population and geography as an aspect of a larger strategy to achieve
national/group interests (be they oil, geopolitical, religious...)

------
devoply
It seems that the case being made there is that because the forces of goodness
and freedom can't actually take on the forces of bad and evil whole cities
must be leveled to the ground to drive out the enemy and the people... And
then when the enemy is fleeing like rats it's easy pickings for the divine
superior air power of the forces of goodness and freedom.

Obviously the billions to be made rebuilding cities by the banks of the forces
of goodness and freedom is a definite incentive. Not to mention multi-national
oil companies which will help rebuild these countries. Sure you might use
chemicals like Agent Orange to defoliate entire forests so you can get at the
enemy for similar reasons, but that's a small price to pay for the forces of
freedom and goodness to prosper.

But what about real solutions? How about not starting wars and creating power
vacuums and minding your own business. But you say war is our business. And I
can't help but nod and agree.

~~~
noir-york
> How about not starting wars and creating power vacuums and minding your own
> business

Democracies tend not to pick fights. Unfortunately Russia (Ukraine) and China
(Taiwan) are on a revanchist path.

Should Taiwan just let the PLA over for tea and a chat? What should the West
do if the CPC decides that its time to "restore China to its former glory" and
take back Taiwan by force?

~~~
SiempreViernes
Do you give up the US as an example of a democracy or your thesis outright to
keep counting the US as democratic? Because you can't have both.

~~~
noir-york
I wrote "Democracies _tend_ not to pick fights" because I knew someone would
mention either the US or the UK.

Of course the US is democratic, however it is also a super power and until
recently was a trusted keeper of the peace (securing blue ocean, trade routes,
etc). The US is not really a valid counter example to my main point as its sui
generis.

------
onetimemanytime
>> _When the former residents of Mosul returned, there was little left. Over
forty thousand homes and sixteen neighborhoods were completely destroyed.
Authorities estimate the cost to rebuild all the destroyed cities in Iraq to
be over $88.2 billion, $42 billion just for the province that includes Mosul_

Tangent, but, If I was one of those Iraqis, I might be mad. Saddam was bad,
but was predictably bad (shut up and you'll get your security and food
rations) now Iraqis have nothing. All that money has gone in black holes and
US based consultants.

------
Isinlor
As other people mentioned, the only correct way to approach wars is to not
have them in the first place.

But since we do have them...

The article failed to convince me that flamethrowers would be in any way less
destructive than artillery and/or bombardment. As a Pole, we have had
experience of our cities being systematically burned to the ground by Germans
during WWII. Notable examples would be Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and Warsaw
Uprising. In both cases Germans used flamethrowers to deliberately burn the
place to the ground, building by building.

"Almost all Warsaw is a sea of flames. To set houses afire is the surest way
to deprive the insurgents of their hiding places. When we crush the uprising,
Warsaw will get what it deserves – complete annihilation." \- Hans Frank,
German Governor-General

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Warsaw](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Warsaw)

On the other hand tear gas seems like quite civilized way to force an enemy
out of a building. I don't see why it should be banned in close range combat.

------
goldcd
Islamic State (or Viet Cong) didn't have to raze the same cities to the ground
in able to 'occupy' them. Putting myself in the position of a civilian in
these scenarios, I always bemused how "please leave your home, whilst we
convert it and anybody left behind to rubble" as liberation like to win the
hearts and minds of me and my family. My take on the article is that it's the
reasonable analysis of how to do what you've been ordered to, whilst
minimizing your own casualties. Fair enough. The writers job. Still, strikes
me as if it were the instructions of how to "best remove a screw when you've
been given a hammer" (without any consideration of why the screw needs to be
removed).

~~~
baud147258
I don't think it's the role of the army to consider why the screw needs to be
removed, that's the job of the politicians.

~~~
goldcd
That was my point, I could have made it clearer.

------
jacobush
I never thought I'd hear flamethrowers being advocated as the benign option,
and not only that, I'd find myself nodding reluctantly!

~~~
onetimemanytime
Insurgent that came in power thanks to US taking out Saddam enter's poor
Iraqi's house. US flattens the house built with sweat and tears and moves to
the next target.

Maybe a flamethrower leave the walls intact or something?

~~~
jacobush
It's exactly that - bombs just makes everything a rubble, streets, pipes,
electricity, houses and also more collateral death.

