| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| How to Fight and Win a War: Bombs Over Tokyo |
| 2015-02-01 |
| Posted by:Elmerert Hupens2660 |
| #8 Exactly |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2015-02-01 19:14 |
| #7 ^and that doesn't require thousands of boots on th ground. Wet work of financiers, middlemen, and suppliers cuts logistics, and with no logistics you're back to rogue losers |
| Posted by: Frank G 2015-02-01 19:12 |
| #6 "To demoralize the enemy and make him understand that he can’t win and therefore must surrender unconditionally, or die." Sounds good but doesn't necessarily work. Germany only surrendered when it was (almost) completely occupied. Surrender only came when there REALLY was nothing left to fight for (and with). That would hardly be the case if Mecca and Medina were destroyed. Quite the contrary. First, go for the money and the hands that feed terror. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2015-02-01 18:46 |
| #5 I'm still waiting for the first ARCLIGHT strike. It terrorized the NVA. I'm sure ISIS would have kittens -- lion kittens -- during one. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2015-02-01 18:26 |
| #4 The current regime views war as "unfriending" on FB or a particular snide and nasty twitter with 4 letter insinuations thrown in. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2015-02-01 15:32 |
| #3 You destroy your enemies by killing them or breaking their will to fight. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2015-02-01 11:31 |
| #2 in the “holy cities” of Mecca and Medina, in which case we will just let them live happily ever after, fulminating against the West and plotting its destruction. The only way to stop evil is to go to its heart, rip it out and stomp on it. Reads like Walsh is advocating the bombing/destruction of Mecca and Medina. Usually enemies surrender unconditionally when they are totally defeated. You can't defeat your enemy if you are unwilling to upset your enemy by what you say. Maybe this would precipitate a serious effort:  |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2015-02-01 09:03 |
| #1 Two points about Bush's speech not made in the article: Bush's remarks on Islam made objectively no sense because Bush is neither a Muslim nor was he authorized to speak for 'Islam' by whatever entity that may be qualified to issue such authorization. The tough part concerning the Taliban was indeed no more meaningful than 'barking rabid dogs' as the Norks would put it. The Taliban ignored the ultimatum but Powell called for Taliban participation in the Afghan government only weeks after Bush's speech. Of course by 2015 the US all but officially endorses the Taliban's rule over Afghanistan. Ignoring a US ultimatum concerning a matter of vital importance to the US apparently carries no big price tag if any price tag at all. |
| Posted by: Elmerert Hupens2660 2015-02-01 07:48 |