“what you call ‘overkill’ is what wins wars”
It is not all that wins wars, and never what wins them in a civilized manner. We were offered basically the same terms before and after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They are justified usually by comparison with a theoretical alternative invasion. But no invasion was necessary. Or it was only necessary because of our bloodlust or a stubborn and irrational insistence on winning in no way but one of our absolute and autonomous choosing.
It is commonly accepted nowadays that the WWI settlement led directly to WWII. No doubt you’d say there’s no peace without total victory, or something, and that had there been firebombings and occupation in 1918 there would’ve been no 1939. However, though the earth was not salted, the men killed and the women and children enslaved, nor the population relocated to Antarctica, Germany was starved into surrender by the blockade, did give up its monarchy for a feckless sham republic, and was burdened by various onerous punishments. Yet somehow this humiliation didn’t put them in their place.
Fastforward to round two. Thus time Churchill especially but the other allies also plan according ti the delusion that the European crisis was caused by some defect in the German soul, and that the German war-starting gene had to be excised from the heart of Europe for peace to return. This despite one if the allies being demonstrably evil and having joined in the exact action of Germany’s which started the war, i. e. invading Poland. They won in popular overkill fashion, then came absurdly close to ensuring future peace by forcibly returning Germany ti a pastoral agricultural economy, thereby killing untold millions.
We got peace, at least. No, not really. We got 50 years of the second-worse thing to war. Tell me why we wouldn’t want an independent Germany standing between Western Europe and the Evil Empire, because I’m at a loss. Oh, right, because war was all about how malevolent was Germany. That’s the ticket.
I often think we weren’t beaten on Vietnam, not really. Though the other side won the war it’s a crime against common sense to say they really won, if you know what I mean. Not compared to how we won WWII, for instance. Because Vietnam wasn’t a war like WWII. It’s apples and oranges. The former was a “limited war.” We placed rather severe restrictions on ourselves. They had to inflict a fraction of the damage on us as we on them to win.
Does that mean we should have gone all out? Invaded the north, bombed cities, occupied neighborng countries? No. Because there were good reasons it was a limited war. We shouldn’t have fought at all, or not at that level of engagement. Tipping the other way might’ve been worse than losing.
“Measured, ‘proportionate’ responses make them drag on and on”
I don’t like the word “proportionate,” as it denotes equality. That truly would lead to stalemate. But that doesn’t mean there are no limits. Responses must be “measured,” at least so that you don’t cause more trouble than you prevent or become an international pariah. Not that the world is fair to Israel; they have to shock the world merely to exist. There’s international opinion and there’s international opinion, if you know what I mean.
Our cognitive dissonance between shooting civilians on the ground and bombing them from the air tricks many into thinking My Mai is worse than Hiroshima. Which is of course ridiculous. Likewise Israel is under a microscope and terrorists have a relatively free hand. It’s not fair. But that doesn’t mean they can respond however they want and remain civilized.