Please read what I posted to him.
He is demoralizing the troops and families of troops who read his dark words, and that is, in my opinion, wrong.
I included you in my post to him because you seemed to be giving unqualified assent to his negativity and pessimism. If you don't feel the same as he does, good.
btw, just having the power to 'unleash overwhelming destruction' doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, or even the best option militarily.
As a vet, you should know that.
Madam, I've tried to be polite..
I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from giving me advice on what I should know or think about when it is appropriate to use ANY military options...
I remain steadfast in my opinion that it is long overdue to deliver a destructive blow that leaves large numbers of the Islamist lunatics stone silent in death or horror at the enormity of the attack.. As always, that decision will be made by the commanders in the field within the framework of their "political constraints"...... I am hoping that the "political constraints" are not going to produce another constrained military as in Vietnam....
You can make of that anything you wish... That is your perogative....and I'll offer no advice. Too many keyboard warriors and "mothers in waiting" seem to be happy trading Marines for lunatics at a ratio of 1:10.
Personally, I believe that's a lousy trade - and would take years and THOUSANDS of dead Marines to show any effect..
I believe it's still not too late for the body bags of coalition forces to stack up, as they did in Vietnam....if we practice TOO MUCH RESTRAINT..
Time will certainly tell...
I'll be the first to celebrate being wrong by being too worried.... I prefer that to being wrong about being overly optomistic.
Semper Fi