Sadistic Bastard
No Mercy
War is when you make the commitment.
War is when you do "surgical strikes" when it's strategically necessary and saves YOUR resources that can be used elsewhere, but also don't hesitate at a "Dresden" type solution if the surgical strike does not accomplish the goal.
War means you win. You win by Destroying the enemy. That means killing a lot of people.
Great Britain in WWII started out with daylight bombing, but then moved to night "area bombing" because their equipment wasn't up to fighting off the Luftwaffe during the day AND area bombing was doing the job. They did "precision" raids (the RAF 617 squadron was famous for it, "Dam Busting" and later with ultra-large "earthquake" bombs) when and where it was practical, but the RAF area-bombed when it was not.
The US didn't really have the equipment to bomb during the day either, but accepted the losses in order to achieve an Objective over Europe. During 1944-45 when the US started bombing Japan, area bombing and incendiary raids (which killed far more people than the nuclear bombs did) were the norm, they accomplished the objective.
The USSR lost millions, and repaid Germany in kind. They did not forget what war was until far later (in the 80's).
Now, we have the technology for a "kinder, gentler" war. Look at Mogadishu, less than 20 US personnel down, for an exchange of 1000's of Somalli's. And it's considered a "loss" by the USA. Would a US general throw men at machine gun nests like we did a Normandy, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, or a thousand other places? Not today. Would a US army leave a "scorched earth" like it did on US soil during Sherman's March to the sea (where the phrase was coined, actually) in order to take the will to fight and the supporting infrastructure out from under the enemy? Not today.
Would US soldiers fight when cornered? Yes, savagely and effectively. See the Chosen Reservoir for what US Marines will do when their backs are against the wall, see a hundred fire-fights in Vietnam where the US was vastly out-numbered and came out having given far more than they got in casualties. When it is defense, when the goal of survival is clear, I'd match the US forces against any in the world, and "we" would win.
But what of a "police action"? What of "regime change"? What of the "Intervention" short of war? The Armed Forces are not a police force. They are not designed that way...nor, IMHO, should they become one.
We should not declare war on a people unless we intend to truly make war. That means you kill everyone if it's necessary. That means you can justify clearly why you are at war to your allies and have the will to do what is necessary. It means you know why you started it and will go until that "why" is completed.
Just like so many things, if you half-commit it will not turn out as intended. But in war, the consequences of failure are far greater than in other endeavors. Survivors do not forget. And in the Middle East, Revenge is a very, very long tradition.
My New Years Message: Fight the Good Fight, without hesitation, remorse, or mercy, but make sure that fight is a "good" one before striking the first blow.
War is when you do "surgical strikes" when it's strategically necessary and saves YOUR resources that can be used elsewhere, but also don't hesitate at a "Dresden" type solution if the surgical strike does not accomplish the goal.
War means you win. You win by Destroying the enemy. That means killing a lot of people.
Great Britain in WWII started out with daylight bombing, but then moved to night "area bombing" because their equipment wasn't up to fighting off the Luftwaffe during the day AND area bombing was doing the job. They did "precision" raids (the RAF 617 squadron was famous for it, "Dam Busting" and later with ultra-large "earthquake" bombs) when and where it was practical, but the RAF area-bombed when it was not.
The US didn't really have the equipment to bomb during the day either, but accepted the losses in order to achieve an Objective over Europe. During 1944-45 when the US started bombing Japan, area bombing and incendiary raids (which killed far more people than the nuclear bombs did) were the norm, they accomplished the objective.
The USSR lost millions, and repaid Germany in kind. They did not forget what war was until far later (in the 80's).
Now, we have the technology for a "kinder, gentler" war. Look at Mogadishu, less than 20 US personnel down, for an exchange of 1000's of Somalli's. And it's considered a "loss" by the USA. Would a US general throw men at machine gun nests like we did a Normandy, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, or a thousand other places? Not today. Would a US army leave a "scorched earth" like it did on US soil during Sherman's March to the sea (where the phrase was coined, actually) in order to take the will to fight and the supporting infrastructure out from under the enemy? Not today.
Would US soldiers fight when cornered? Yes, savagely and effectively. See the Chosen Reservoir for what US Marines will do when their backs are against the wall, see a hundred fire-fights in Vietnam where the US was vastly out-numbered and came out having given far more than they got in casualties. When it is defense, when the goal of survival is clear, I'd match the US forces against any in the world, and "we" would win.
But what of a "police action"? What of "regime change"? What of the "Intervention" short of war? The Armed Forces are not a police force. They are not designed that way...nor, IMHO, should they become one.
We should not declare war on a people unless we intend to truly make war. That means you kill everyone if it's necessary. That means you can justify clearly why you are at war to your allies and have the will to do what is necessary. It means you know why you started it and will go until that "why" is completed.
Just like so many things, if you half-commit it will not turn out as intended. But in war, the consequences of failure are far greater than in other endeavors. Survivors do not forget. And in the Middle East, Revenge is a very, very long tradition.
My New Years Message: Fight the Good Fight, without hesitation, remorse, or mercy, but make sure that fight is a "good" one before striking the first blow.
