is there victory without decimation?

Question

past wars tactics do not work as efectively because the opposition ian't dumb as all would have us believe. (recall the portrait we were all spoon fed about suicide bombers) the people we fight believe in their cause. in the past weve destroyed infastructure which supported the war effort and fought the armies in uniforms. do you think its possible to not destroy their urban battlefield and win this war? the British lost a few hundred years ago in large part because they did't change their tactics.

Answer 1

There can be victory without decimation; in fact, Sun Tzu once wrote, “The acme of skill is not to win a thousand victories. The acme of skill is to win without fighting.” This is accomplished by using political, economic, psychological, and moral means before military use, and a good strategy when the military solution is applied. An example is Hitler using diplomatic means to reoccupy the Rhineland, add Austria, rearm Germany, and occupy Czechoslovakia, without having to fight France and the UK. In the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy announced a quarantine, which forced Khrushchev’s hand and withdraw the Soviet missiles from Cuba. As for the urban battlefield, the Battle of Fallujah is not a good example to follow; the city was totaled and that would not go well for the residents who will come back to find their homes and businesses demolished. That does not win hearts and minds, and only creates more enemies. The proper method of winning the urban battlefield in our current conflicts is not by blowing up enemy, but rather, using SWAT tactics to take out the insurgents while protecting people’s home and property.

When the American public and the West in general, think of war, they imagine massive armies clashing and annihilating each other until one side surrenders. This is a legacy of Karl von Clausewitz, but history has shown that it is costly and inefficient (see WWI). The US military clearly has not advanced in the strategic and tactical level by continuing its doctrine of attrition warfare. We can clearly see that attrition warfare does not lead to victory in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc (when dealing with guerillas and other non-state actors). We can pound the enemy with our superior firepower all we want, but they still have the will and capability to fight. In Vietnam, they fought for ten years (not including their struggle with the French). In Iraq and Afghanistan, who knows how long they will fight. Simply put, if it doesn’t work, what you are doing must be wrong, and to escalate the situation only make things worse.

Answer 2

If we wanted to win in Iraq, we could. The public wouldn't like it, but we';d win.

For example: If a family member blows himself up, the families house gets burned down or a family member is killed. That would end things quicker. No it's not nice, but niether is war.

Answer 3

YES. ITS CALLED SURRENDER. BUT I DON'T LOOK FOR THAT TO HAPPEN ANYTIME SOON UNLESS THE DEMS WIN THE WHITE HOUSE OR CUT OFF FUNDING FOR THE WAR AS THEY DID IN VIETNAM WITH THE USUAL HORRIFIC RESULTS. WE REALLY DON'T MIND THEM KILLING EACH OTHER. AFTER ALL, THEY HAVE BEEN DOING THAT FOR CENTURIES. BUT THEY ARE NOW IN THE PROCESS OF EXPORTING THEIR SICK AND SOUR PHILOSOPHY WORDWIDE----NO LESS DEADLY AND DANGEROUS THEN COMMUNISM-IN SOMEWAYS MORESO. THE SOVIETS AT LEAST HAD THE CAPACITY FOR INTELECTUAL THOUGHT. THIS MOVEMENT HAS A BOOK THAT SAYS ITS OK FOR THEM TO CUT UP YOUR MOMMY AND DADDY FOR THE SAKE OF THEIR RELIGION. SCARY ENOUGH FOR YOU?

Answer 4

NO!!