Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueStreak
All I'm saying is that when we do go to war, we should fight it to win and stop mucking about with it. The whole "surgical strike" and "limited response" thing just is not working. But, I do agree that we need to restrain ourselves from developing an itchy finger, shooting at anything that looks like it might become a threat. That's no good either.
Dave
|
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.