Replies

Not really.

If we cast off our inhibitions, and fought all-out, we could make short work of our enemies.

After all, we have thousands of times the potential military power of all the countries in the Middle East put together. We could put an army of 15 million men, with 100,000 tanks and 500,000 artillery pieces in the field.

We have not done this because we have correctly assessed our enemies as a bunch of losers who are unlikely to succeed. If it turns out this assessment is wrong, watch out! It will not be pretty, but you will remember how Germany ended up in April-May 1945.

If we cast off our inhibitions, and fought all-out, we could make short work of our enemies.

Bingo.

We have not done this because we have correctly assessed our enemies as a bunch of losers who are unlikely to succeed.

This is where I disagree. I think two major factors have shaped the way we now fight. First, there's the hideous iron grip of political correctness on every facet of our society, including our leaders and the way they choose to defend us. A penultimate and relevant example: We changed the name of our war--originally called Infinite Justice--to avoid offending our enemies, and this was almost immediately after 9/11.

Second--and this one is obviously exacerbated by the aforementioned PC issue--is the fact that our leaders have bought into the notion that our wonderful technology has changed the nature of war, that we can now kill only the worst of the bad guys and still attain victory. That's a lie. Should we target civilians? Of course not. It's reasonable to avoid the loss of innocent civilian life. But we take it way too far now. As a result, for example, the Iraqi population has zero fear of us. If we leveled a couple towns (after giving one notice for all to vacate) where these thugs are hanging out, things would change. The population would turn on those who brought destruction down upon them. As it is now, that factor is totally off the board.

I fear this mindset is eventually gonna directly cause the death of a staggering number of Americans, and I sadly conclude that only such a cataclysm will jolt our leaders out of the fantasy world in which they currently operate.

We have not done this because we have correctly assessed our enemies as a bunch of losers who are unlikely to succeed.

I have to respectfully disagree with this statement. We have not done what we need to do militarily because of the pressure from our gutless, insane liberals, who even though they are the minority, are still hugely influential in setting policy in this country.

If we cast off our inhibitions, and fought all-out, we could make short work of our enemies.

Yeah this dogma worked really well for the Germans in Eastern Europe during WW2. NOT! Counter Insurgency is not total war. Right now it is primely fought by Muslims, with our backing, against Muslim Terrorists. This ridiculous "total war" doctrine exposed by Social Worker turned Talk Radio Host Mike Savage et al would have us fight ALL of them by ourselves. Absurd nonsense. Not do able political, not doable militarily, unwarranted morally. This is not WW3, it is NOT Total War. Our foes cannot destroy us as the Nazis and Japanese might of been able too. Some of the Arm chair Pattons however, want to turn it into WW3. Thankfully Bush and Company are FAR smarter and FAR better military and political strategists then any of the Freeper Generals.

"If we cast off our inhibitions, and fought all-out, we could make short work of our enemies."

The problem is that we are a muscle-bound giant, afraid of our own power.

One of these days the Islamists are going to bring down the Sears tower, or plant a suitcase nuke at the base of Hoover Dam. Then maybe we'll wake up. I am not optimistic, based on our feckless behavior since 9/11.

--Boris