1

I've read this CNN-hosted analysis/criticism of the nature of the IDF's offensive

“In two months, we’ve had about the level of strikes in this tiny little area in Gaza as what we saw in Mosul and Raqqa combined,” said Larry Lewis, research director at the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) and formerly the US State Department’s senior adviser on civilian harm, referring to US-led coalition operations against two ISIS strongholds. “It is an incredible amount of strikes, period-wise.”

But I don't quite get that point. Why does it matter if it took 9 months not 2 to get to the same level of destruction in (say) Mosul?

Improve this question
4
  • 4
    Not gonna go for an answer since many public statements about this war come with a lot of underlying assumptions and positions, which may not be stated. But... with Mosul and Raqqa the anti-ISIS coalition took months to plan their strikes before launching them. And it was still a bloody mess. Figuring things like: "ok, our drones show 2 armed guys going into this house on Tuesday, but 4 children returning from school on Wednesday" take time and lots of people cycling through the data. Israel is operating on a much shorter timeline, so it will affect how many mistakes are made.
    – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica
    Commented Dec 27, 2023 at 18:26
  • Comparison about prep and lead time was made about 10-20 minutes into the War on Rocks Oct 13 podcast
    – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica
    Commented Dec 27, 2023 at 18:29
  • 8
    One "common sense" answer is that the amount of carnage has overwhelmed Gaza's health services. Doctors are forced to do surgery without anaesthesia and premature babies have been left to die. Less intense bombings would give the hospitals more time to "cope" with the casualties.
    – Gaslight Deceive Subvert
    Commented Dec 27, 2023 at 20:27
  • 3
    Isn't it rather self-explaining? The news paper article simply wants to emphasize that the intensity of the war is currently very high. For that it compares with another war. Action / time = intensity. And it does matter to those who are bombed because they die faster. I fail to see the political angle. It's just an information.
    – NoDataDumpNoContribution
    Commented Dec 28, 2023 at 14:46

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

There's no expectation that dropping bombs faster will make the war be over sooner. They are simply dropping more bombs.

A war doesn't end when all the targets on a list have been bombed. A war ends when a political solution is reached (such as a surrender) or one party is completely destroyed, or can't attack any more (which is usually followed by its surrender or complete destruction). Hamas will continue attacking Israel and IDF will continue attacking Palestine until one of those things happens.

There's no reason to think that dropping 4.5 times as many bombs per day will make that end come 4.5 times sooner. It could lead to a total destruction of Gaza 4.5 times sooner, but that's still going to take a very long time if Israel continues using the same weapons, so a political solution is still most likely to come first. It could lead to IDF running out of bombs 4.5 times sooner, but they presumably planned to not run out.

Improve this answer
2
  • Instead of firing 100s of rockets daily, many days go by without Hamas firing any rockets at all. Sounds like one side is getting closer to the point where they "can't attack anymore". And yes, that's happening through war.
    – Jacob3
    Commented Jan 18 at 11:57
  • 1
    "all targets on a list have been bombed", and "[one side] can't attack any more", seem to be quite related, rather than the extreme opposites.
    – Jacob3
    Commented Jan 18 at 12:01

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .