Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
so then "terrorists" are doing the exact same thing that clausewitz argued any modern military had to do in the course of war--to weaken "morale"--because morale is also a "legitimate" military target, yes? if you believe this nationalist mythology stuff that is (without it, military actions are functions of purely technical rationality--which seems obviously true, but no matter, let's stick with the mythology of nation), morale is what enables the conduct of war at all. so therefore anything that undermines morale serves properly military functions.
so if that is true, where does the distinction terrorist/not terrorist lay again?
|
What you don't mention, is that Clausewitz' idea of total war has been tried and dismissed. The west no longer fights a total war, and no longer has to kill large numbers of civilians in order to win a conflict. They tried that in WW2, by bombing cities; the results weren't as dramatic as expected. In fact, the morale wasn't going down as expected, but often went up. As in: they may break our walls, but won't break our resolve.
We learned from those mistakes. The terrorists haven't learned that lesson yet.