I don't remember the US and UK being so successful in Afghanistan nor Iraq judging by what we are witnessing today.
Western societies have no idea what we are dealing with. A psychopathic nihilistic cult of death who have no problem sacrificing their own men, women and children for the cause of Allah. Each one of these terrorists are more than happy to meet their Shahada with 72 virgins up next to their "spiritual" leader. MHMD.
Thanks Andrew. I found your essay enlightening. It's good to understand why there was so much criticism from some respected military commentators. Hopefully, they will read this article.
"Israel should switch to a hearts-and-minds campaign." The US has tried from Vietnam foward and, in my opinion, it has been a dismal failure. Either you remove the fighting class or the people won't change their minds about supporting them and then you work hearts and minds but not before the fighters are gone. In Gaza the Gazaniacs will support Hamas and if that group is gone then there might be a chance to persuade the people but the terrorist organization has to go first. However, the real problem in the region is Islam.
The "hearts and minds" approach of American generals hasn't work out so well in Iraq and Afghanistan either, because in both places the American forces are up against Islamic jihadis who believe they are defending Dar al-Islam against infidels, and they have support of the people, who believe the same. The hearts and minds idea does not take into account the degree to which a Muslim population will support Islamic jihad, either out of fear or fanaticism.
It is correct to believe that withdrawing that popular support would starve the terrorists of the moral and logistical support they need to continue, but the reality is that support for Hamas among Muslim Palestinians has not waned (note that I only use their term for themselves for the sake of expediency, not to endorse their delusions). Recent polls indicate that a majority of them still view Oct 7th as justified and would prefer Hamas leadership to secular rival Fatah. If some of them say they opt for a two-state solution, they really view it as a temporary truce, giving them time to re-build Hamas. This is an example of taqiyya, religiously sanctioned deception. Their long-term ideological goal of destroying Israel has not gone away.
I looked up the COIN strategy. It is based in part on experiences in Vietnam, where it did not work either. However, the principle is sound: win over the populace to win the war against militant insurgents who rely on the local populace for support. Its execution is the hard part, especially when it comes to Communism or Islamism, the two main ideological enemies of the Western world. For this reason, I believe the 20-point Trump plan is likely doomed because it relies on disarming and re-educating them, which at present they are not amenable to. The Chinese state did it Xinjiang province with millions of Muslim Uyghur but the CCP's methods have been condemned internationally. The other option, mass deportation -- for example, to Somaliland -- has also been condemned but in the end it might be the only way.
A noted scholar of religion, Marc Juergensmeyer, argues that secularization is the key to peace. Yes, but how can that be accomplished, especially when it seems that half the world is giving support to the terrorists and is scapegoating Israel? Almost the entire Muslim world, and now millions of delusional Leftists give moral support to Hamas. As has often been stated, Israel may win militarily but has lost on the public relations front.
To explore this further, I was recently comparing the ideas of Robert Spencer, a well known critic of Islam (founder of JihadWatch and author of The Palestenian Delusion), with sociologist of religious violence, Marc Juergensmeyer, author of the scholarly book Terror in the Mind of God. I think this comparison sheds light on this discussion, so bear with me.
Juergensmeyer's thought lines up more with the 'hearts and minds' campaign referred to above. He argues for secularization and to end cyclic violence that results in retaliation. Spencer is critical of "cycle of violence" theories—like those of Juergensmeyer's—arguing that it doesn't properly apply to Islam. While Juergensmeyer views Islamic violence as a sociological process that can be interrupted, Spencer views it as a theological mandate independent of external provocation. Spencer argues that modern social science "misdiagnoses" the problem of Islamic violence by looking for "root causes" like poverty, state oppression, or historical grievances. Jihad, he says, is proactive, not reactive. Grievances cited by groups like Hamas or Al-Qaeda are merely "pretexts" used to make their cause more palatable to Westerners. Even if Israel or the U.S. were perfectly conciliatory, the Islamic imperative would remain, meaning the violence would not cease. It would simply lose its current excuse. So offering a two-state solution is not going to work. It's well beyond that now.
Juergensmeyer is correct to argue that religious terrorism is seen by its adherents as a "cosmic war" of good versus evil and the jihadi sees himself as an agent of the divine, giving his life and death ultimate meaning. But this only illustrates the power of jihad and why it's almost impossible to stop it, short of killing the jihadi. He is not easily secularized. The only solution is cutting off his support, which is not easy when almost the entire Muslim world is supportive. I don't mean Arab government leaders who signed the Abraham accords and live in fear of jihad themselves and want to supress it; I mean the average Muslim. Most are anti-Israel, having been brought up that way. And there are a lot of them: two billion.
Jurgensmeyer and others like him argue that continued force by the state only reinforces the terrorist's position. His solution to the 'cosmic war' is to de-sanctify the conflict, moving it from the "cosmic" realm back to the "political" realm where rational, negotiable compromises are possible. In other words, the solution is secularization. But the problem is that this is not a secular conflict in the mind of the jihadi. Spencer points out that the Quran is seen by its adherents as immutable and divine. Juergensmeyer sees religious framing as a choice made by actors, but Spencer sees it as a requirement of Islamic faith. Nor does Spencer view violent jihad as just one interpretation of Islam; he thinks it is central to that faith.
A further problem that Spencer raises is that because there is no central authority in Sunni Islam to "de-sanctify" a war. Any jihadi can always point back to the literal text to restart the violence, rendering any "peace treaty" temporary. Secularization is viewed by the "pious" jihadi as apostasy. Secularization of some part of the population merely endangers the Muslim apostate, including those in a secular government. The problem with appeasement is that it is based on Western projection: because Western religions underwent an Enlightenment and secularization, Islam, it is thought, can and will do the same. But all Muslim reformation attempts have been violently quashed. Spencer says, "the jihadists will not be bought off by negotiations or concessions. This is the revival of a 1,400-year-old war . . . it will not end anytime soon."
The idea that peace is possible through secularization is a dangerous delusion because it ignores the "supremacist" nature of the religious ideology in question. I believe Spencer's analysis is more or less consistent with what the above essay argues. The conclusion from this is not hopeful because it means the war will go on, unless perhaps there are mass deportations sufficient to remove local popular support for the terrorists. The other strategy, which seems to be the one pursued for the time being, is to build a technocratic surveillance state in Gaza against terrorism, even though it can never be entirely secure against terrorism as long as Palestinians live there.
In the last paragraph above, I briefly refer to the Gaza rebuilding as utilizing "technocratic surveillance." I asked AI about it and it answered that it will be a "three-tiered governance structure that includes significant surveillance and security measures as counter-terrorism and demilitarization tools . . . [including] biometric surveillance. Reports indicate there will be gated compounds, such as a proposed Emirati compound, where residents would be monitored via biometric screenings, checkpoints, and tracked electronic currency. Unlike passwords, biometric markers (faces, fingerprints) cannot be changed. Israel intends to maintain security control over key areas like the Rafah Crossing using remote surveillance systems and vetting mechanisms for all travelers. Artificial Intelligence tools like Lavender and products from U.S. firms (e.g., Maven and Dataminr) are expected to continue mapping connections between civilians and militant groups to facilitate targeted counter-terrorism operations. The plan requires the decommissioning of all Hamas weapons and the destruction of "terror infrastructure". The cost is estimated to be over $53 billion."
I then asked AI what possible objections will be. It answered: "Some observers argue this model risks turning Gaza into a "panopticon" or a "managed" enclave where technocratic administration masks continued external military control. International human rights organizations, legal experts, and Palestinian advocacy groups object to the erosion of fundamental human rights, the psychological impact of constant monitoring, and the potential for these measures to facilitate "political engineering". The use of biometric screenings and digital tracking for access to housing and aid is seen as a violation of international law. Agencies like UNICEF have characterized "biometrics-for-food" models as a breach of humanitarian ethics, arguing against making life-saving aid contingent on surveillance data. Critics argue that pervasive digital monitoring—including phone and internet interception—infringes on the right to anonymity and creates a "totalizing and opaque" environment where civilians are constantly judged by unseen authorities." Reports indicate that Palestinians often limit calls, change SIM cards, and avoid social gatherings out of fear that their associations will be "misclassified" by AI-driven targeting systems like Lavender. The UN Special Rapporteur has identified the suppression of Palestinian voices as a global challenge, noting that security-based "gatekeeping" often obscures documentation of human rights violations. Groups like Al-Shabaka argue that technocratic governance by the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) excludes Palestinians from meaningful decision-making, effectively stripping the population of political agency. Because these systems are often classified as "decision-support tools" rather than weapons, they remain outside the remit of some international treaties, making it difficult to hold states or private firms like Palantir accountable."
My response to this: while I am normally not one to support technocracy or state surveillance, due to its invasion of privacy and supression of free speech, this is a unique case where such tools are clearly necessary as counter-terrorism measures when used in conjunction with a population that is so totally committed to terrorism and has shown no indication that it plans to stop. The other option is mass deportation -- which the "international human rights" activists also object to. Funny how their concern for human rights doesn't seem to extend to Jews being massacred on Oct 7th or Jews being attacked in Western nations since then. These kinds of measures seem wrong in Western nations, such as the UK, to suppress legitimate dissent from policies such a mass immigration, but they are perfectly justifiable in Gaza, given its history. A Briton can be arrested for arguing that the government should not allow illegal migrants from Islamic countries to invade his country, and these "human rights" groups either say nothing or side with the state in the name of suppressing "Islamophobia" -- but suddenly they're vocal when it comes to monitoring a population with a long history of killing Jews. Interesting.
Great article. Also remember that 5,000 o 10,000 people in a population of 2 Million dies every year of natural causes, accidents and other causes not related to the conflict.
Therefore 15,000 to 25,000 deaths are due to those causes since the war began.
Thus the death toll due to IDF action is 27,000 to 15,000. While that is unfortunate it is hardly cause for worldwide condemnation.
If the world gave credit where it was due and applauded Israel for fighting in this hellscape with such restraint and moral integrity, then I would fully support this strategy. But since the world seems hell bent on condemning Israel no matter what they do, they should just go full Roman Legion - annihilate them all.
Andrew Sullivan is right to torch the nihilism of the .00001 class. He is right to call out moral evasions. But when he refers to “the IDF’s massacre of children in Gaza,” he collapses a morally and legally distinct reality into a slogan. Words matter. “Massacre” implies intent. It suggests that the deliberate killing of children is policy rather than tragic consequence. That is a serious charge, and it deserves serious evidence.
The governing reality in Gaza is not that Israel woke up one morning and decided to target children. The governing reality is that Hamas has embedded its military infrastructure into civilian life as a matter of doctrine. Weapons caches in mosques. Command centers beneath hospitals. Launch sites adjacent to schools and apartment blocks. This is not accidental proximity. It is strategic design. The goal is twofold: to deter Israeli strikes by using civilians as shields, and when deterrence fails, to convert civilian casualties into political capital. That is what it means to weaponize a population. It is grotesque. It is also effective.
This is the core argument made by Andrew Fox in his recent essay, “The debate over Israel’s Gaza strategy is wrong.” Fox argues that much of the public debate assumes Israel has a menu of clean options it is simply refusing to choose. In reality, he writes, Israel is confronting an adversary that has deliberately erased the line between combatant and civilian. Urban warfare against a non-state actor embedded in dense civilian terrain produces horrific outcomes even when the attacking force attempts mitigation. The question is not whether civilian deaths are tragic. They are. The question is who bears primary responsibility when a militant organization designs a battlefield around its own children.
One can criticize specific Israeli tactics. One can question proportionality. One can argue about long-term strategy. But if we are going to talk about nihilism, let’s start with the ideology that builds tunnels under nurseries and stores rockets in prayer halls. That is not a footnote. That is the predicate.
I don’t often stop reading a Future of Jewish article but when the author quoted casualty figures of 71,000 with a civilian death toll of 45,000, I realised he was quoting Hamas figures, not credible ones. Furthermore the ‘hearts and minds’ debacles, in which trumped up ‘evidence’ was used to destabilise countries in the Middle East leading to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and the rise of Al-Qaeda/ISIS (with zero existential threat), should be forever be deemed a disaster on a par with Vietnam. I understand the author served during this time. The IDF in my opinion is the most moral army in the world. The Americans would have halved the population if faced with a similar situation and the British Army is not even equipped to fight off an invasion of the UK.
To my dying day I will not understand this mania with fighting wars in an acceptably "nice" way. COIN aside - that may be relevant at times, but it certainly does not apply to Gaza: the best way is always to inflict the most harm on the enemy with the idea of total surrender and decimation, along with the least amount of casualties for us. Isn't that the definition of war? l believe less people will die in the long term if wars are fought like wars, not like games of chess.
There is only one tactic for dealing with Hamas in Gaza...
Kill every member of the Terrorist organization Hamas...
That's not murder...
It is Justice!
Oct 7th will never be over till every person that participated or supported it is dead!
Jews and Christians together...
We are Strong, We are Brave!
We are... Sword of God!
I don't remember the US and UK being so successful in Afghanistan nor Iraq judging by what we are witnessing today.
Western societies have no idea what we are dealing with. A psychopathic nihilistic cult of death who have no problem sacrificing their own men, women and children for the cause of Allah. Each one of these terrorists are more than happy to meet their Shahada with 72 virgins up next to their "spiritual" leader. MHMD.
That's why I am always in favor of more martyrs for Allah.
Thanks Andrew. I found your essay enlightening. It's good to understand why there was so much criticism from some respected military commentators. Hopefully, they will read this article.
"Israel should switch to a hearts-and-minds campaign." The US has tried from Vietnam foward and, in my opinion, it has been a dismal failure. Either you remove the fighting class or the people won't change their minds about supporting them and then you work hearts and minds but not before the fighters are gone. In Gaza the Gazaniacs will support Hamas and if that group is gone then there might be a chance to persuade the people but the terrorist organization has to go first. However, the real problem in the region is Islam.
The "hearts and minds" approach of American generals hasn't work out so well in Iraq and Afghanistan either, because in both places the American forces are up against Islamic jihadis who believe they are defending Dar al-Islam against infidels, and they have support of the people, who believe the same. The hearts and minds idea does not take into account the degree to which a Muslim population will support Islamic jihad, either out of fear or fanaticism.
It is correct to believe that withdrawing that popular support would starve the terrorists of the moral and logistical support they need to continue, but the reality is that support for Hamas among Muslim Palestinians has not waned (note that I only use their term for themselves for the sake of expediency, not to endorse their delusions). Recent polls indicate that a majority of them still view Oct 7th as justified and would prefer Hamas leadership to secular rival Fatah. If some of them say they opt for a two-state solution, they really view it as a temporary truce, giving them time to re-build Hamas. This is an example of taqiyya, religiously sanctioned deception. Their long-term ideological goal of destroying Israel has not gone away.
I looked up the COIN strategy. It is based in part on experiences in Vietnam, where it did not work either. However, the principle is sound: win over the populace to win the war against militant insurgents who rely on the local populace for support. Its execution is the hard part, especially when it comes to Communism or Islamism, the two main ideological enemies of the Western world. For this reason, I believe the 20-point Trump plan is likely doomed because it relies on disarming and re-educating them, which at present they are not amenable to. The Chinese state did it Xinjiang province with millions of Muslim Uyghur but the CCP's methods have been condemned internationally. The other option, mass deportation -- for example, to Somaliland -- has also been condemned but in the end it might be the only way.
A noted scholar of religion, Marc Juergensmeyer, argues that secularization is the key to peace. Yes, but how can that be accomplished, especially when it seems that half the world is giving support to the terrorists and is scapegoating Israel? Almost the entire Muslim world, and now millions of delusional Leftists give moral support to Hamas. As has often been stated, Israel may win militarily but has lost on the public relations front.
To explore this further, I was recently comparing the ideas of Robert Spencer, a well known critic of Islam (founder of JihadWatch and author of The Palestenian Delusion), with sociologist of religious violence, Marc Juergensmeyer, author of the scholarly book Terror in the Mind of God. I think this comparison sheds light on this discussion, so bear with me.
Juergensmeyer's thought lines up more with the 'hearts and minds' campaign referred to above. He argues for secularization and to end cyclic violence that results in retaliation. Spencer is critical of "cycle of violence" theories—like those of Juergensmeyer's—arguing that it doesn't properly apply to Islam. While Juergensmeyer views Islamic violence as a sociological process that can be interrupted, Spencer views it as a theological mandate independent of external provocation. Spencer argues that modern social science "misdiagnoses" the problem of Islamic violence by looking for "root causes" like poverty, state oppression, or historical grievances. Jihad, he says, is proactive, not reactive. Grievances cited by groups like Hamas or Al-Qaeda are merely "pretexts" used to make their cause more palatable to Westerners. Even if Israel or the U.S. were perfectly conciliatory, the Islamic imperative would remain, meaning the violence would not cease. It would simply lose its current excuse. So offering a two-state solution is not going to work. It's well beyond that now.
Juergensmeyer is correct to argue that religious terrorism is seen by its adherents as a "cosmic war" of good versus evil and the jihadi sees himself as an agent of the divine, giving his life and death ultimate meaning. But this only illustrates the power of jihad and why it's almost impossible to stop it, short of killing the jihadi. He is not easily secularized. The only solution is cutting off his support, which is not easy when almost the entire Muslim world is supportive. I don't mean Arab government leaders who signed the Abraham accords and live in fear of jihad themselves and want to supress it; I mean the average Muslim. Most are anti-Israel, having been brought up that way. And there are a lot of them: two billion.
Jurgensmeyer and others like him argue that continued force by the state only reinforces the terrorist's position. His solution to the 'cosmic war' is to de-sanctify the conflict, moving it from the "cosmic" realm back to the "political" realm where rational, negotiable compromises are possible. In other words, the solution is secularization. But the problem is that this is not a secular conflict in the mind of the jihadi. Spencer points out that the Quran is seen by its adherents as immutable and divine. Juergensmeyer sees religious framing as a choice made by actors, but Spencer sees it as a requirement of Islamic faith. Nor does Spencer view violent jihad as just one interpretation of Islam; he thinks it is central to that faith.
A further problem that Spencer raises is that because there is no central authority in Sunni Islam to "de-sanctify" a war. Any jihadi can always point back to the literal text to restart the violence, rendering any "peace treaty" temporary. Secularization is viewed by the "pious" jihadi as apostasy. Secularization of some part of the population merely endangers the Muslim apostate, including those in a secular government. The problem with appeasement is that it is based on Western projection: because Western religions underwent an Enlightenment and secularization, Islam, it is thought, can and will do the same. But all Muslim reformation attempts have been violently quashed. Spencer says, "the jihadists will not be bought off by negotiations or concessions. This is the revival of a 1,400-year-old war . . . it will not end anytime soon."
The idea that peace is possible through secularization is a dangerous delusion because it ignores the "supremacist" nature of the religious ideology in question. I believe Spencer's analysis is more or less consistent with what the above essay argues. The conclusion from this is not hopeful because it means the war will go on, unless perhaps there are mass deportations sufficient to remove local popular support for the terrorists. The other strategy, which seems to be the one pursued for the time being, is to build a technocratic surveillance state in Gaza against terrorism, even though it can never be entirely secure against terrorism as long as Palestinians live there.
In the last paragraph above, I briefly refer to the Gaza rebuilding as utilizing "technocratic surveillance." I asked AI about it and it answered that it will be a "three-tiered governance structure that includes significant surveillance and security measures as counter-terrorism and demilitarization tools . . . [including] biometric surveillance. Reports indicate there will be gated compounds, such as a proposed Emirati compound, where residents would be monitored via biometric screenings, checkpoints, and tracked electronic currency. Unlike passwords, biometric markers (faces, fingerprints) cannot be changed. Israel intends to maintain security control over key areas like the Rafah Crossing using remote surveillance systems and vetting mechanisms for all travelers. Artificial Intelligence tools like Lavender and products from U.S. firms (e.g., Maven and Dataminr) are expected to continue mapping connections between civilians and militant groups to facilitate targeted counter-terrorism operations. The plan requires the decommissioning of all Hamas weapons and the destruction of "terror infrastructure". The cost is estimated to be over $53 billion."
I then asked AI what possible objections will be. It answered: "Some observers argue this model risks turning Gaza into a "panopticon" or a "managed" enclave where technocratic administration masks continued external military control. International human rights organizations, legal experts, and Palestinian advocacy groups object to the erosion of fundamental human rights, the psychological impact of constant monitoring, and the potential for these measures to facilitate "political engineering". The use of biometric screenings and digital tracking for access to housing and aid is seen as a violation of international law. Agencies like UNICEF have characterized "biometrics-for-food" models as a breach of humanitarian ethics, arguing against making life-saving aid contingent on surveillance data. Critics argue that pervasive digital monitoring—including phone and internet interception—infringes on the right to anonymity and creates a "totalizing and opaque" environment where civilians are constantly judged by unseen authorities." Reports indicate that Palestinians often limit calls, change SIM cards, and avoid social gatherings out of fear that their associations will be "misclassified" by AI-driven targeting systems like Lavender. The UN Special Rapporteur has identified the suppression of Palestinian voices as a global challenge, noting that security-based "gatekeeping" often obscures documentation of human rights violations. Groups like Al-Shabaka argue that technocratic governance by the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) excludes Palestinians from meaningful decision-making, effectively stripping the population of political agency. Because these systems are often classified as "decision-support tools" rather than weapons, they remain outside the remit of some international treaties, making it difficult to hold states or private firms like Palantir accountable."
My response to this: while I am normally not one to support technocracy or state surveillance, due to its invasion of privacy and supression of free speech, this is a unique case where such tools are clearly necessary as counter-terrorism measures when used in conjunction with a population that is so totally committed to terrorism and has shown no indication that it plans to stop. The other option is mass deportation -- which the "international human rights" activists also object to. Funny how their concern for human rights doesn't seem to extend to Jews being massacred on Oct 7th or Jews being attacked in Western nations since then. These kinds of measures seem wrong in Western nations, such as the UK, to suppress legitimate dissent from policies such a mass immigration, but they are perfectly justifiable in Gaza, given its history. A Briton can be arrested for arguing that the government should not allow illegal migrants from Islamic countries to invade his country, and these "human rights" groups either say nothing or side with the state in the name of suppressing "Islamophobia" -- but suddenly they're vocal when it comes to monitoring a population with a long history of killing Jews. Interesting.
Great article. Also remember that 5,000 o 10,000 people in a population of 2 Million dies every year of natural causes, accidents and other causes not related to the conflict.
Therefore 15,000 to 25,000 deaths are due to those causes since the war began.
Thus the death toll due to IDF action is 27,000 to 15,000. While that is unfortunate it is hardly cause for worldwide condemnation.
If the world gave credit where it was due and applauded Israel for fighting in this hellscape with such restraint and moral integrity, then I would fully support this strategy. But since the world seems hell bent on condemning Israel no matter what they do, they should just go full Roman Legion - annihilate them all.
Excellent essay, well thought out and sensible.
Andrew Sullivan is right to torch the nihilism of the .00001 class. He is right to call out moral evasions. But when he refers to “the IDF’s massacre of children in Gaza,” he collapses a morally and legally distinct reality into a slogan. Words matter. “Massacre” implies intent. It suggests that the deliberate killing of children is policy rather than tragic consequence. That is a serious charge, and it deserves serious evidence.
The governing reality in Gaza is not that Israel woke up one morning and decided to target children. The governing reality is that Hamas has embedded its military infrastructure into civilian life as a matter of doctrine. Weapons caches in mosques. Command centers beneath hospitals. Launch sites adjacent to schools and apartment blocks. This is not accidental proximity. It is strategic design. The goal is twofold: to deter Israeli strikes by using civilians as shields, and when deterrence fails, to convert civilian casualties into political capital. That is what it means to weaponize a population. It is grotesque. It is also effective.
This is the core argument made by Andrew Fox in his recent essay, “The debate over Israel’s Gaza strategy is wrong.” Fox argues that much of the public debate assumes Israel has a menu of clean options it is simply refusing to choose. In reality, he writes, Israel is confronting an adversary that has deliberately erased the line between combatant and civilian. Urban warfare against a non-state actor embedded in dense civilian terrain produces horrific outcomes even when the attacking force attempts mitigation. The question is not whether civilian deaths are tragic. They are. The question is who bears primary responsibility when a militant organization designs a battlefield around its own children.
One can criticize specific Israeli tactics. One can question proportionality. One can argue about long-term strategy. But if we are going to talk about nihilism, let’s start with the ideology that builds tunnels under nurseries and stores rockets in prayer halls. That is not a footnote. That is the predicate.
Sorry, this was posted on the wrong substack.
I don’t often stop reading a Future of Jewish article but when the author quoted casualty figures of 71,000 with a civilian death toll of 45,000, I realised he was quoting Hamas figures, not credible ones. Furthermore the ‘hearts and minds’ debacles, in which trumped up ‘evidence’ was used to destabilise countries in the Middle East leading to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and the rise of Al-Qaeda/ISIS (with zero existential threat), should be forever be deemed a disaster on a par with Vietnam. I understand the author served during this time. The IDF in my opinion is the most moral army in the world. The Americans would have halved the population if faced with a similar situation and the British Army is not even equipped to fight off an invasion of the UK.
To my dying day I will not understand this mania with fighting wars in an acceptably "nice" way. COIN aside - that may be relevant at times, but it certainly does not apply to Gaza: the best way is always to inflict the most harm on the enemy with the idea of total surrender and decimation, along with the least amount of casualties for us. Isn't that the definition of war? l believe less people will die in the long term if wars are fought like wars, not like games of chess.
Hamas has downgraded the civilian numbers time for a rewrite
It hasn’t…