How should a country respond to a surprise attack?
By way of comparison – Pearl Harbor and October 7th.
The Japanese surprise attack on US warships in their Hawaii base killed ~2,370 and weakened the American naval fleet in the Pacific.
Even with negligible civilian casualties, no face-to-face killing, no rape, and no hostages… the surprise attack galvanized the United States into a four-year war in which there was no turning back.
When it was understood that the American pre-WW2 “conception” of neutrality was completely mistaken, the response was a complete reversal of approach. US leaders understood that war unfortunately entails at least peripheral civilian deaths. The American commitment to fight until victory occurred in spite of the attack occurring in Hawaii, very far from mainland USA. America regained huge strategic depth spanning half the Pacific Ocean. And even if the Japanese had managed a small attack on mainland USA, the latter would still have had enormous strategic depth thanks to the geography of North America.
And yet so many around the world don’t understand why tiny Israel continues to fight against Hamas after such a savage attack right on Israeli soil, and while Hamas still holds over 100 hostages. Where is the fortitude to win? Was the USA justified in fighting against Japan until victory? Was there ever a war more justified than the one Israel is fighting now against Hamas?
No comments:
Post a Comment