“But history shows that your position results in the least loss of life on both sides and minimizes community damage.”
A current, real world model for your “kill everything” position is Chechnya. The Russians did indeed:
“...kill as many and destroy as much as is necessary to achieve this, “collateral damage” be DAMNED. If protest arises, armed or otherwise, you put it down IMMEDIATELY with extreme prejudice.”
In that case the damage to the community was extreme, the loss of life was far worse in proportion to the numbers of people caught up in the conflict, and fighting didn’t end because everything was destroyed.
...as there are not as many people left to wage the war.
If you rinse and repeat again and again, the fighting WILL stop, one way or the other (peace via negotiations or extermination).
You misrepresent my position. “Kill everything” (not my position) is quite different from “defeat the enemy with overwhelming power and quickly” (my position).
Chechnya is the perfect example of a vastly superior military entity going into a situation with insufficient force and spineless political resolve, and allowing the conflict to linger. Russia, which once owned half of Europe and was at one time our military equal, has managed to induce anger rather than respect by making Chechnya a police state rather than a war zone. Thus, it has become a slow, drawn out process that has been damaging to both sides.
And because the Russians have chosen to police rather than defeat Muslim extremism, they have only made the worldwide conflict with Muslims worse.
I guess its a matter of philosophy: would you consider Hiroshima to be a “kill everything” position, or a “defeat the enemy with overwhelming power and quickly” position?