[BroJoeK]

stremba: "As for the bomber crews, I think you can give them a pass, but possibly hold their leaders responsible to some degree."

Sorry, but the principle is the same with those bomber-crew leaders as with Sherman's "march to the sea".
In both cases, the purpose was to destroy, not only the enemy's physical ability to support their military, but also their will to fight.

Remember: you don't ever win a war until the enemy gives up the fight.
Giving-up-the-fight is a matter of both rational and emotional choice -- the enemy must, must, MUST feeeeeel defeated, otherwise you'll just have them back at your throat again in a few years.
That was the LESSON #1 from the First World War.

So the question, then and now, is whether an enemy can be forced to give-up-the-fight without having suffered major destruction?
In other words: is there a "kinder and gentler" way to win a war than by killing people and destroying their stuff?

Of course, the Great Moral Minds of our Age are firmly convinced there must be a better way: "smart bombs", "precision guided weapons", "shock & awe", invisible drones, etc., etc.

But, perhaps even you, stremba, have noticed?
When was the last time we truly won a war?

[1010RD]

Prof. Schweikart has some interesting insights into the American way of war. I believe he’s absolutely right that a people, used to liberty, living in a republic and not wanting to every lose or waste the lives of their beloved husbands, fathers, or sons, have long demanded that materiel and the lives of the enemy be wasted first.

A persistent CO element in all our wars has helped, reinforced more recently by idiotic doves in the peace movement for whom no war is ever justified. Professor, is that your opinion, too?