Shorter Lara Dadkhah: BOMB MOAR!!!
American and NATO military leaders — worried by Taliban propaganda claiming that air strikes have killed an inordinate number of civilians, and persuaded by “hearts and minds” enthusiasts that the key to winning the war is the Afghan population’s goodwill — have largely relinquished the strategic advantage of American air dominance. Last July, the commander of Western forces, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, issued a directive that air strikes (and long-range artillery fire) be authorized only under “very limited and prescribed conditions.”
So in a modern refashioning of the obvious — that war is harmful to civilian populations — the United States military has begun basing doctrine on the premise that dead civilians are harmful to the conduct of war. The trouble is, no past war has ever supplied compelling proof of that claim.
Indeed. In fact, I believe I can disprove this premise fairly conclusively. Consider: of all the civilians who have hidden or aided our enemies, none were dead at the time they did so. Might it not be that the best way to win hearts and minds, then, is to carbonize and splatter them all over the Hundu-Kush? “More rubble, less trouble,” in other words. As an added bonus, if we kill all the civilians in Afghanistan, the number of subsequent civilian deaths will quickly fall to zero. So, in addition to being strategically sound, it is also the most humanitarian approach.
Wars are always ugly, and always monstrous, and best avoided. Once begun, however, the goal of even a “long war” should be victory in as short a time as possible, using every advantage you have.
Yeah, like I didn’t just say that 2 seconds ago. Jeez. Let’s win this thing!
Oh, BTW: what do we win? It’s got to be awesome.