Destruction in the Old City of Mosul. Most of its narrow streets are impassable, strewn with debris and destroyed vehicles. (Alice Martins for The Washington Post)
Lieutenant Colonel David G. Bolgiano, U.S. Air Force (Retired), and Lieutenant Colonel John Taylor, U.S. Army (Retired): Can't Kill Enough to Win? Think Again
When is the United States going to do the killing necessary to beat its terrorist enemies or eliminate them entirely?
Those given the awful task of combat must be able to act with the necessary savagery and purposefulness to destroy those acting as, or in direct support of, Islamic terrorists worldwide. In 2008, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Navy Admiral Michael Mullen said, “We can’t kill our way to victory.” Ever since, many have parroted his words. But what if Admiral Mullen was wrong? The United States has been at war with radical Islamists four times longer than it was with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in World War II. And those previous enemies were far more competent and aggressive than the terrorists. It is time to kill a lot more of them.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: Sadly .... there is a lot of truth to this commentary. The destruction of the Islamic State ... from the beginning of this year to the fall of Raqqa in Syria a few months ago .... gives support to this argument that the only way to win a war is to utterly destroy the enemy. And in this war .... especially when the campaign to retake West Mosul intensified in February .... the destruction and devastation was complete. Another war that comes to my mind is the Sri Lankan Civil war. This war was the first conflict that War News Updates followed, and it was a civil war that just would not end .... ongoing for almost 25 years. This all changed in 2008 when the Sri Lankan government made the decision to pursue an annihilation strategy .... a strategy that bluntly violated every humans rights principle on the books. In the end .... the destruction and devastation was complete, tens of thousands were killed, but the war ended.
On a side note. Russian war strategy focuses on the importance of annihilating the enemy .... a strategy that goes back to the beginning of the Soviet Union. It has been used against its own people .... via through mass starvation and mass deportations during Soviet times, and it has been used in warfare .... the Afghan war in the 1980s (which failed), and in the battle for the Syrian city of Aleppo (which succeeded). This is also why for the past 3 years I have been petrified of a Ukraine - Russian war. The Russian military would employ this strategy .... and they will win. But the destruction of the Ukrainian cities that I love would be complete, a prospect that unfortunately many of my friends and family in Ukraine are oblivious to.
The USSR almost won in Afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteHad the war started earlier, they would have won.
You should pick history book about afgan , start from alexander the great
DeleteBody parts stashed in fridges, horrific accounts of torture and mystery disappearances: Full horror of President Assad's regime laid bare as smuggled documents held in secret location are opened for the first time
ReplyDeleteRead more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5139433/Files-President-Assads-war-crimes-revealed.html#ixzz50A9jRGcv
WNU Editor,
ReplyDeleteYou are quite correct. This is all the more reason for Ukraine to act to avoid this.
This isn't particularly hard. After all had they not been so stupid they'd still have Crimea. America ahould take note of this as well and perhaps learn lest we be on the receiving end of such destruction.
Click bait, if you believe that title you are very simple minded. Wars can be won without a single man dying.
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteYou can win wars without a single man dying.
That is what Sun Tzu, the author or author(s) write about.
It is why diplomats do all their maneuvering.
It is why Bismark would maneuver in between 'Wars' Personally, I like the term
diplomatic offensives". I do not know, if I read & forgot or made it up.
Diplomatic offensives" are precious in game play and IRL. You begin with your
diplomatic offensives" and then your troops stroll right through.
You could consider Bismark's efforts after each war as a war. A war of a different type. There were 3 Silesians wars. Before and between wars, there was non-kinetic fighting going on (not all BIsmark in 1 or 2 of these Silesian wars). Austria and Prussia didn't start loving each other in between wars.
The annexation for Czechoslovakia was proceeded by a diplomatic offensive. It was a very successful offensive. The Czech border defensives were for the most part in the rough defensible terrain (no kidding), which happened to be Sudentenland. So one of those types that would ban phosphorus, cluster bombs, mines, nukes, gas etc just gave just gave 'The Corporal' the Czech defenses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Czechoslovakia#Munich_Agreement
I am not reading about any soldiers dying during the annexation. There may have been.
We have had continuous disinformation campaigns since at least the end of World War 1. Those are wars.