Question #2: Is AQ a military?
Yours are good questions, no doubt. AQ/Taliban HAS no country. These groups squat inside other countries, and in the homes of innocents -- and defeat these countries from the citizenry up. There is no real *there* there in these countries to ascribe a German or Japan "victory".
Afghanistan and Iraq have come a long ways in declaring their OWN VICTORY of their OWN COUNTRIES WITH THE HELP OF COALITION FORCES. Now, the US/Coalition along with Iraqis, Afghanis, and Pakistani's are talking about what to do with a nomadic group of people waging war against just about everyone.
I don't think this is at all similar to war with Germany or Japan.
The point is, neither Afghanistan nor Pakistan nor Iraq will give up LAND in order for the warring Taliban/AQ to declare as their own. These countries have seen too much of what has gone on with the Mid-East (Israel, Palestine, etc.).
Instead they are suggesting that they too can live in the country of their choice (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq) but they MUST obey the laws laid down by the official government of these countries.
This is not a lose-lose proposition, whatsoever, IMHO. This has the smell of victory, to me, on multiple levels. If AQ/Taliban member go back to a killing spree, they will be prosecuted under the laws of the country they are resident in, and by the military/police forces, law of that land. Sounds like a republican democracy to me. And this is Victory in a war very different from Germany and Japan.
Alia, what those countries want to do is up to them. I would like to think they would NOT involve the Taliban in their government, because the Taliban once held government positions and it was terrible.
What I object to is a Senator of the United States marching off to a foreign land and making comments that address issues that are none of his business. Yes, he should know what is going on over there so he can support those whose perview it is to set policy, but no he should not make comments about things like this.
Sorry, but that's how I see it. I appreciate your response. I agree with some of your premises about territory and the Taliban not having a sovereign area to rule.
Frankly, that's a very good thing in light of their track record.
Was turning either Dresden or Tokyo into a firestorm a military objective? Was the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki about defeating an army?
Please. We won that war because we defeated whole nations, not just armies.