Do sustained bombing campaigns ever turn civilians against their leadership? Did London turn on Churchill during the Blitz? Did Germans turn on Hitler in the face of round-the-clock strategic bombing? Short of dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, has a sustained bombing campaign ever ended a war?
I ask after reading Josh Marshall's take on the Hersh article. Here's the passage that disquiets me:
One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government." He added, "I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, 'What are they smoking?'"
Is there any historical precedent for this (anonymously sourced) expected result?
Where are the Democrats? Where is the principled opposition?
By 2:57 PM, at
They are all running for President and don't want to be soft on terrorism.
A fair point on Kosovo. Without the bombing, Milosevic would never have agreed to allow peacekeepers. But there was no spontaneous revolution.<< Home