I agree with you that those various conflicts are likely won without the infringements of Rights. Mine was a more cerebral question, existential if you will. Im talking state of mind - would a nation whose sensibilities are offended at the prospect of Japanese-American internment camps be too fragile to do what was necessary to win the war (drop the bomb, employ "total war", etc)? And if that answer makes you at least pause, what does that say about our national capacity to wage war in the era of PC against an enemy that requires nothing less than total defeat?
Lets put it another way. Years ago we would have declared total war, & been much less concerned (strategically) with "collateral damage." The Taliban would be eviscerated under WWII rules of engagement. Now Im not arguing pro or con, Im simply saying that not employing the full might of the US military means a longer, more costly war. That being a reality, has our "advancements" in what is judged as a "humane standard" forever precluded us from seeing a WWII style victory, or clear cut triumph over evil, again?
And if so, how do we contend to defeat an enemy that requires just such a victory, now or in the future, without it dragging out endlessly, with no clear defeat?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment