Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
The more "asymmetrical" a war is:
- the less Clausewitzian ideas can be applied
|
this is true, but it doesn't seem to stop you trying
[Edit for reduced glibness]
Clearly Afghanistan and Iraq are complicated situations. But your idea that the solution is more firepower more ruthlessly deployed calls ultimately for indiscriminate massacre.
We do not live in that world.
Your argument that there is no such thing as
jus in bello is also not borne out by centuries of warfare in Europe and elsewhere. Although WW2 saw the world at large close to losing that perspective.
There is in fact a civilisation, and war is in fact a social act.
And indeed people do plan ahead for today's enemies may be tomorrow's allies.
You want to throw away everything in order to score a win in
Afghanistan?
As I said, the only realistic option for a hegemon, is to appreciate that areas of the periphery will be restive, and will require patience and skill to keep things manageable.
This was true for Rome, true for Great Britain, and is true for the US.
Destroying whole nations to solve this sort of moderate threat is massive overkill and defeats the point in fact.