[truth_seeker]

"We didn't nuke Mecca or drag Arab Americans from their homes after 9/11."

We nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and dragged Jap Americans from their homes. And won that War, for keeps.

(And in the other theater we bombed Dresden and Berlin, innocent civilians, with the intention of ending the war, from the bottom up).

We are treating the war against islam(ic) extremism like a police case, one criminal and gang, at a time.

Point: In the end, it took a MASSIVE shock, to stop Jap fanaticism.

What is different, about this war?

Muslims worldover are making WAR. USA, Israel, Sudan, Spain, Turkey, Russia, India, Philippines, Indonesia.

They TARGET innocent civilians, yet their civilians escape with impunity.

I argue it won't end, until it becomes clear perhaps 10,000 of their own civilians will die, for each person they kill.

Why is this war not like others, whereby you beat the enemy down, until he surrenders? Islam(ic) extremism has not surrendered, yet.

Germany and Japan were eventually capable of self-governance. But they had to be rid of their "extremists."

Getting there took the deaths of many non-combatant ("peaceful") civilians, and national recognition of defeat.

I guess my argument is that it is not until the society feels the brutal costs of the war, and total defeat, will they willingly undertake becoming a re-newed society.

We frequently hear of "the Arab Nation" and the "muslim World." They are responsible for their own, for better and worse.

Perhaps we (and Spain) have become "too civilized" to inflict total defeat.

Spain's rational response to Madrid SHOULD have been sending tens of thousands MORE troops, to Iraq and Afghanistan. NATO's response to Istanbul and Madrid SHOULD have been sending hundreds of thousands of troops.

[Jim Noble]

We are treating the war against islam(ic) extremism like a police case, one criminal and gang, at a time.

And for every one we get, there are ten replacements.

THAT'S the difference between war and what the police do.

And the answer, you are entirely correct, is to break the enemy. When they are broken, the death rate of their fighters fiinally exceeds the replacement rate, and then (eventually) they give up.

We are faced with legions of stupid young men, for whom the cost of picking up a gun does not now exceed the reward (in self-esteem, local renown, etc).

The job of our soldiers and marines is to make sure the cost-benefit equation favors leaving the gun alone.

The traditional way this is done is to kill everyone who picks up a gun for some time, until societal evolution kicks in.

We are not imposing a high enough price on the wannabes, and as a result we are going to get more of them.