Not huge at all. You're the one demanding that we make people fear us.
Governing a nation the size of Iraq with fear requires a lot more bodies than we have in the US military, and it requires that those bodies be controlled by minds not habituated to any manner of self-restraint. In other words, we would need to have something along the lines of the late and unlamented Hussein-al-Tikriti government.
You're also putting words in my mouth.
You're the one who posted "I want to see smouldering turbans. I want to hear about dead terrorists and I want terrified terrorist sympathizers begging to tell us what we need to know to kill more."
Sorry. Your words, your problem. You can't disown them at this point.
If tough uncompromising action is not the solution to this terrorist problem I'm all ears to your solution.
There is a difference between "tough uncompromising action" and what you advocate.
Two words cover this situation: "Continue mission."
That is tough and uncompromising enough.
We are killing the terrorists. We are doing so in a fashion that leaves them isolated and alone, and shows that their sympathizers are weak and ineffective.
Your historical and legal knowledge is impressive; you're grasp of human nature is less so.
Since my knowledge of human nature is derived from my study of history, then you're the one who has to explain how people magically changed sometime after 1960 or so, so that they react with cowering fear at fairly low grades of terrorism.
You're an idealist.
True enough.
Idealism is costly on the battlefield
Expediency is even more costly.
and book learnin' is no subsitute for balls when things get nasty.
Suppose that I am an Iraqi civilian, and a "terrified terrorist sympathizer" gave an American commander false information (whether from malice or merely from the hope that he'd go terrorize somebody else is irrelevant) that identified my wife as a terrorist. She is detained, and has the same tactics used against her.
I can tell you this much: after learning that someone had done that to the woman I love, I would gladly trade my life for an opportunity to end his. The size of his genitalia (physical or metaphorical) would not protect him.
I imagine that you are the same way, unless you're seriously telling me that you would cower in fear of whoever did that to your wife.
You only terrorize those you are in direct contact with.
Everyone else, you merely motivate to seek revenge.
I don't need to disown them. My intent is that that is directed at terrorists not the whole population. If you believe that the mission is on that target I can only hope you are right. As for the rest: you are right about me I wouldn't be intimidated by the situation you describe. But I don't see a relation to West's situation. Unless I missed something he didn't intimidate or threaten someone's wife and he knew just who he did have. You imagine much. Not only in my words but in the situations you describe.
I'm hoping for efficiency not expediency. I know these guys are the best but I want efficiency of clear eyed policy too. I see problems with that. It's evident in the fact that we can't call palestinians terrorists and let Isreal deal with them appropriately. It is evident in other ways too which I have already stated.