That is not to say that counterinsurgency should be devoid of violent response. But that response needs to be targeted at those actually carrying out the attacks, or else you just build local sympathy for the insurgents.
I read it. There are points that I disagreed with based on the kind of ruthlessness deployed and the actual targeting parameters. Even the Russians displayed emotional content in their attempt. We sure as heck did in VietNam. You must be totally detached and fight your enemy as they fight you.
What I propose, in lieu of laying waste, is pulling all our military assets home (from everywhere and sealing our borders) and only project power via strategic weapons. We should never, I repeat never, put boots on the ground anywhere we do not intend on occupying on a indefinite timeline. Which we will never do again because we as a society have lost our edge to survive and take the heat and being called imperialist. we had rather be everyone’s friend and try and buy cooperation/loyalty from people who have no concept of cooperation/loyalty outside a primitive bond to a false god.
No other cultures’ life value should be placed above ours. It is time we practice self-preservation for a while.
What backfired in VietNam was a lack of leadership and a willingness to bring a prejudiced end to the conflict couple with a movement at home of dispassionate hedonism. The first mistake was going there, the second was not having the will to do what it took to win, counterinsurgency or not.