reply to post by v1rtu0s0
The number is too low and thats why we have been in Afganistan for 10 years. This entire notion of precision warfare is a joke. It makes war
antiseptic. Somehow clean and tolerable. The entire doctrine of the modern military is based on a false premise that delivering a death by 1000
cuts is a reasonable way to win a war. Its not. Had the US military carpet bombed the border lands between Pakistan and Afganistan and the other
Taliban strongholds years ago we would be out of there. The fact that the number of children killed is so small is indicative of a failed policy.
This whole notion of a "clean war" is absolutely ridiculous. These watered down rules of engagement are ridiculous. If you are going to engage in
war you should bring it to the enemy. It should be an absolute bloodbath. The consequences should be so horrific that you would only engage in war
if directly threatened. In other words, if you are not willing to kill a lot of kids, don't go to war.
Our wars today, like every war we have been engaged in since WWII are a joke. They never should have been initiated and have been designed to never
end. The best case scenario in Iraq is that in 10 years we have a psuedo ally in the middle east that will more often than not side with the Arab
League on matters of global affairs and will have a suspect intelligence community playing both ends against the middle. The best case scenario in
Afganistan is that a bunch of combative tribes live in a wasteland with some new roads and schools in it. First, the US will never be out of
Afganistan and if we did totally pull out, in 5 years it will be what it was in 1999, which is essentially where it was in 1799 and not far different
than it was in 599AD.
The entire issue is this absurd notion of recriprocol warfare. We respond in kind. Why spend $billions on a military if you are only going to
respond in kind? If you are going to only respond in kind than you should not respond at all.
Interesting that despite direct proximity to Muslim countries, China and Russia have been relatively immune to terrorist attacks. They have nowhere
the level of high tech weaponry that we do. Why is that? Because neither buy into the notion of limited response. They are not interested in
working it out or discovering motives. They certainly are not going to waste (yes, waste) having their military build schools and roads in a nation
that has attacked them or harbored those who attacked them. They have one component in their arsenal that the US does not have and that is the fear
generated by their political leaders. They both have the political will to deliver an extreme response and as a consequence their Muslim neighbors
are scared to death of them. If the roles were reversed and the Chinese were looking for Bin Laden for a decade, spending tens of billions of
dollars looking to fight his organization and getting jerked around by Pakistan who were clearly hiding him and playing the Chinese for fools, several
square miles around the area where he was captured would now be a parking lot.
The entire US military should be halved. They can not have it both ways, needing over 700 bases around the world while at the same time spending
hundred of billions on precision weapons which can project war thousands of miles away.
The entire defense establishment, outside of the people serving it is rife with corruption, making Wall Street look like a few gents skimming money
off the local school board petty cash fund.
edit on 13-8-2011 by dolphinfan because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-8-2011 by
dolphinfan because: (no reason given)