Comment by tptacek

Comment by tptacek 3 days ago

7 replies

It eliminated their entire command and control network, hospitalized hundreds of their officers and command staff, put the IRGC on notice that it has been comprehensively infiltrated, and will force months of internal investigations and purges.

Further, it comes during a time where Iran has been publicly messaging about retaliation for the killing of Ismael Haniyeh, so there's a geopolitical angle to it as well: "we can do this, think about what we'll do next if you try launching another 300 drones at us".

I don't think it's very hard to make a military validity argument here (of course, it's easy for me to do that, since I'm shoplifting an argument from Noga Tarnopolsky and Oz Katerji here).

bjourne 3 days ago

Spreading fear is generally considered terrorism - not a proper military objective. You have to realize that the argument you're making goes both ways here.

  • tptacek 3 days ago

    In every military conflict in the history of warfare, combatants have taken steps to inspire fear in their adversaries. You may be providing a definition of terrorism, but I don't think it's a useful one; I think you need to refine it more if you want to make it operable here.

    In any case, where you use the word "fear" I would probably use "deterrence".

    • bjourne 3 days ago
      • tptacek 3 days ago

        I have no idea why you think that is a comparable event.

        What I think may be happening here is that my reply to Kasey is being read as a justification for attacks on civilian populations. That is not a thing I believe; as you know, from the rest of this thread, my contention is that this attack targeted combatants.