[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
POW’s would be returned quickly if we made the cost of capturing American soldiers too high to endure. For every country that chooses to keep Americans hostage, destroy a city block every hour until they are returned, unscathed. Random cities. Easy peezy lemon squeezy. Fuck GIVING them a reason to capture Americans. If they know we have a weak assed president who will give up FIVE high level “detainees” for ONE piece of shit deserter, IMAGINE what we would give up for a real soldier? No, we should take that incentive away. Make the cost of the kidnapping/prisoner business too high. If anything, they would give a shot down pilot a ride back to the border.
We have the greatest and most powerful military in history. Yet we are consistently getting our asses kicked by these third world, piece of shit countries. We have pussy politicians and limp wristed bureaucrats running wars. Fuck that. The reason the entire third world thinks they can fuck with us is because we lack the will to use our force. Raze a city or two to the ground. Let them know the cost of attacking the United States of America OR our Citizens abroad. Make the cost unbearable. Take “negotiation” out of the equation. Seriously. Why the hell would we entertain the demands of some camel fucking muslim? ONE American soldier’s life is worth ten thousand of theirs, IMHO. Once they understand that, the American POW problem would go away quickly.[/quote]
Yeah, that strategy worked great for the Soviets in Afghanistan. Bashar al-Assad is also implementing it to great effect.[/quote]
No, it’s NOT the same strategy, nor the same context. The Soviets were and occupying force and Assad is the president of HIS OWN country. Neither of them have anywhere CLOSE to the air superiority, ordinance or military might of the United States of America. It is NOT comparable.
For the record, I KNOW it will never happen. No “civilized” Western politician these days has the will to win a fucking war anymore. This simplistic concern for the safety of “non-combatants” effectively hamstrings most effective strategies.
War hasn’t changed. It’s been an ugly, hideous monster for thousands of years. What HAS changed is scales of communication and the ability of MEDIA to bring the horrors of war into everyday households. So now politicians are under pressure to “sanitize” war. That’s impossible.[/quote]
The ISAF didn’t occupy Afghanistan? The DOD defines air supremacy as the “degree of air superiority wherein the opposing air force is incapable of effective interference”, so I’m unsure why you’re using the term to support your position. Terrorist organizations don’t field air forces. The disparity of power between the USSR (a superpower) and the mujahideen (a group of non-state actors) was enormous. Over 1,500,000 civilians were killed during the war. A bit more than two cities worth. Had Premier Angrychicken been at the helm of power, the Soviets could and probably would have glassed Afghanistan many times over. Circa 1979, it is comparable.
The “simplistic concern for non-combatants” is a keystone of counter-insurgency doctrine and international peremptory norms, but hey, that’s a bit more complex than air superiority. Yours isn’t a position of a hard nosed realism, but of a profound and disconcerting nescience.
