I agree with you — war is about blasting your enemies to holy hell.

My problem with this conflict is, its not a war. Its the same problem thats been around since 9/11 . . . you can’t have a “war” on “terror.” You can have a war against an opponent, but you need there to be some entity to eventually say “no mas.” We could win WWII because Germany and Japan surrendered, and the people of the countries went along with that. Thery wnet along with the surrender (IMO) because they had something to lose.

Viet Nam — what did the Viet Cong have to lose (aside from their lives)? They had no reason to quit attacking, regardless of the fact that they got their keisters handed to them in pretty much every battle we had.

Iraq — who would surrender to us? The insurgency isn’t a cohesive, single opponent. It’s lots and lots of differnt fighters, with various reasons to want to die. If, hypothetically, Moqtada Al-Sadr ordered the Madhi Army to lay down their arms, would the fighting end? Probably not — there are plenty of other attacking groups, and there’s every reason to believe the solders in the Madhi Army would simply form another group, or join one of the currently existing ones.

Army vs. Army is straightforward — shoot the people in the wrong uniforms. Army vs. a population is a little more complicated.

“There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time.”

- General George Patton

“Hit hard, hit fast, hit often”

- Admiral William (Bull) Halsey

“You’ve got to kill people, and when you’ve killed enough they stop fighting.”

- General Curtis (Iron Ass) LeMay

The single biggest failing with this war and all the others since WWII one of which I had the misfortune to participate in is the concept of limited war. The enemy will simply never observe the limits. The first thing you need to do before getting into a particular conflict is decide approximately how many folks you need to kill (that’s right kill) to totally devastate the enemy and eliminate any possibly resistance to occupation. You can try to avoid collateral damage but not at the risk of losing. If you are not willing to do that than assuming you have the choice consider other options.

I believe we are going to have to consider a completely different foreign policy, maybe something closer to the old Monroe Doctrine or maybe a Machiavellian deal with China, Russia, and India. The Euros are a weak sister and a lost cause. Remember currently China and India need the oil in the Middle East more than we do. Russia can never really trust the Muslim populations on its southern borders. We can’t afford to be the policeman for the entire planet. That would take a ruthlessness the U.S. citizenry isn’t prepared to tolerate. The people in the eastern hemisphere are not going to sit around and hold hands and sing kumbaya any time soon. If we focus on the western hemisphere (including Australia and New Zealand) we can probably defend it given some substantial increases in expenditures on energy and military technologies. But maybe I am wrong.

“Yes, there’s always the unexpected, isn’t there?”

Jack Hawkins as Major Warden - The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)

G. M.

I said it last thread, I’ll say it again. The military CANNOT stabilize the country. They CAN kill the people who are shooting and bombing, but they can’t create a working government. That’s just not their forte.