British Journalist David Haines beheaded!

[Combwork]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

I assume you're talking about winning the traditional American US Grant way. Unconditional surrender. But let's look at what that really requires. You have to kill, destroy, and occupy massively and thoroughly. The population must be in fear for the biological survival of the nation.

For example, by the time WWII was over, 8 to 10 percent of all Germans were dead. Historically, conquered nations have often lost 20% or more of their population.

So, in rough numbers, doing the job to ISIS might mean killing 10% of the Sunni populations of Iraq and Syria, very roughly, maybe 2 million or so. Mostly civilians, ISIS doesn't have vast armies mobilized, they just have a fairly unlimited ability to draw more fighters from the population.

So, kill 2 million, 'win the war.' Up for that?

War is a blunt instrument anyway, and making unconditional surrender the goal makes it really blunt. I've nothing but admiration for leadership that goes to war reluctantly and in a limited way, if that will do the job.

ISIS's greatest strength is the way they can mobilize a virulent right wing here to do enormous political damage, just by killing two Americans.

No matter how acurately targeted, bombs, rockets, whatever gets throw almost always causes 'colateral damage' . If a man sees his family wiped out who's he going to back? The British parliement was recalled a few hours ago and got the right to launch targeted strikes; they could be doing it now. What's the answer; "my enemys enemy is my friend"? Is there any country in the region that hates ISIS more than they hate us?

Yes, "something has to be done" but what? The problem is that ISIS is not structured the way we are. No identifiable center. It's like the IRA but on a much larger scale.