Most definitely. This was a justification for destroying whole villages that the Viet Cong were using as cover to attack from / move supplies / etc. People in these villages were essentially fucked because either the Viet Cong or the Americans were going to destroy their homes.
Very similar to the “human shields” rhetoric we’re seeing today to justify leveling whole cities in Gaza. In WWII it was, “we are bombing civilians to weaken their war machine”, despite all evidence that showed strategic bombing did absolutely nothing to the war machine except galvanise the populace against the enemy and reinvigorate their commitment to winning the war.
Most definitely. This was a justification for destroying whole villages that the Viet Cong were using as cover to attack from / move supplies / etc. People in these villages were essentially fucked because either the Viet Cong or the Americans were going to destroy their homes.
Viet Cong might destroy the village, Americans will destroy the village …
Hiding underneath a village to avoid bombs is just destroying with extra steps.
Very similar to the “human shields” rhetoric we’re seeing today to justify leveling whole cities in Gaza. In WWII it was, “we are bombing civilians to weaken their war machine”, despite all evidence that showed strategic bombing did absolutely nothing to the war machine except galvanise the populace against the enemy and reinvigorate their commitment to winning the war.