A ceasefire has the result of stopping death and property destruction. It seems you're OK with a shooting war continuimg in the hope that one more Israeli might be killed, even at the expense of many dead Pallys. What a courageous position to take from your position of safety of the Great Satan..If Israels actions worked, there would be no need to call a cease fire.OH Hell... Just what did I sidestep?You are sidestepping my post.RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: Not all counter-mortar/counter-rocket operations have Enemy Annihilation as a commander's objective. I believe you should listen to what our friend "rylah" has said.
(COMMENT)rylah said:Are you suggesting that for the Israeli's actions to 'work',
they must result in the total removal of the enemies who signed the ceasefire?
There are several reasons why Enemy Annihilation might be considered (ie breakout operations, penetrations of the FEBA, and the protection of lightly armed maneuverer elements). One of the most common defensive reasons is when the OPFOR's ability to replenish stocks in order to maintain the required levels for sustained hostile operations is very short. If the OPFOR's ability to resupply is fast then suppression operations can keep them neutralized, then the magnitude and intensity of the retaliation will be to ratchet up the responses until the enemy can no longer maintain its tempo, the OPFOR is attrited below combat effectiveness, or that the OPFOR resupply and replenishment cycles are depleted.
In the case of HAMAS, it becomes obvious when their effectiveness is no longer sustainable → or → the stocks are depleted → when they sue for a cease-fire.
Most Respectfully,
R
R