Is all out bombing worth it?

[Shankapotomus]

The U.S. has devoted a fortune in lives, treasure and time to Iraq with little to no return. In fact, it can be argued the region is worse.

For what we already gave to not only Iraq, but the region, we should have a stable Middle East.

We don't.

It seems whether we continue with our past bombing strategy or stay completely out of the conflicts in the regions, people are going die. They are going to die at the hands of ISIL and the various unending conflicts that engulf the region. Or they are going to die under the past and current level of our bombing campaigns.


If ISIL or any of the various extremists of the region win out, it can be expected that the people of the region will suffer indefinitely under the restraints of a cruel ideology.

So with all that suffering and dying lying ahead of us no matter what we do or don't do, can a case be made for ending the conflicts once and for all with the threat or use of our superior strength (not necessarily our nuclear arsenal) as we did in World War Two?

Such an all out war doesn't have to mean bombing civilians but it could mean taking a heavier hand on extremists and their sympathizes than we have and outlawing extremist ideologies as was Nazism in Germany. In addition, getting the UN to create a referendum to outlaw all armies, both national and private in the regions, with that eventually being applied world wide except for a global UN peace keeping force.

As distasteful as an all out war was, it did put an end to the conflict and the ideology that gave rise to it and it did it all on multiple fronts within 6 years. And for all the expense of World War Two, yes, including selling their souls to the devil, the allies got what they wanted out of it in the end.

Can we say the same? We've already bombed. We've already sold our souls to get rid of these terrorists and they're still fucking here.

If we're going to sell our souls anyway should we not go all the way in order to get the return we are looking for?

[merrily]

1. Your assumption seems to be that more bombing will indeed get the "return"

we are looking for.

That is true only if causing even more deaths and suffering is the "return" we are looking for. It sure isn't going to result in fewer people who hate us and anyone who sides with us and who want to attack us in any way their means allow.

This is also an untrue assumption:

So with all that suffering and dying lying ahead of us no matter what we do or don't do,

More corpses and more destruction from more bombing = more suffering and dying. That is self-evident. And, because I do believe that our current course will only result in more people who hate us for even longer times that was true before, I would submit emphatically that, for our own sakes and those of our kids and grandkids and great grandkids, we should be arguing for an immediate end to our current course, not an escalation.

[Shankapotomus]

3. It can be said the allies didn't care two bits

If the Germans hated them. They were going to completely obliterate not only the enemy forces but the ideology and practices that gave rise to them. And they did. They made it so bad that it wasn't even worth believing in Nazism anymore.

You have to ask what's different? Why did the Nazis give up where the terrorists won't? And I think it's because their refuges are being left in tact. At the end of the day, the terrorists have somewhere to go. The Nazis had nowhere to go. Everything was bombed out. Their allies were bombed or overtaken.

[merrily]

17. Well, that and a million other differences between then and now and

between the situation with Nazis and the situation with Al Qaeeda and IS.

You single out one thing--more killing by us in WWII--and then assume that that one thing made all the difference.

BTW, more brutality to Germans in World War I and the conditions of the peace treaty of World War I certainly contributed to the rise of Hitler in the first instance.

IMO, violence is never the correct answer and more violence is even less likely to be the correct answer.

[Shankapotomus]

6. I'm going to ask all who prefer a different way

to share how they would defeat terrorism and the ideology of terrorists?

[99Forever]

11. How?

Stop. Feeding . It.

[Shankapotomus]

14. Good point /nt

[nightscanner59]

15. Here's my plan:

1. Dump about 5 billion gallons of Valium into the entire middle eastern water supply. 2. All allied forces stage total invasion, gathering all intel while every last one of them are totally dazed. 3. Remove, detain, rehabilitate, eliminate radicals and anyone near stockpiles of weaponry (that are confiscated) 4. Stop selling the bastards weapons 5. Let them wake up to a few missing, radical elements. 6. Get our public transit and alternative energy act truly together so we never, ever have to buy even one more gallon of crude from the region.

[Shankapotomus]

16. Put them all to sleep?

That's actually quite funny but, in a way, brilliant...The region does seem a little cranky. Perhaps they need their rest?

That would be a massive invasion of privacy, though, and I could see more potential for abuse of innocent civilians. Even if you could do that, how would you know who was a radical and who wasn't?

[Bigmack]

35. My plan.... porn....

We bomb the shit out of them with DVD players with DVDs already loaded with soft/medium core porn. With lots of blondes. Big breasted blondes.

We hear all the time that our culture is decadent. Let's use that decadence to our advantage.

Those young men are all thinking about killing and death. We get them watching some relatively mild porn with lots of good-looking flesh..... well....they might think of other things.

[Shankapotomus]

47. It will probably work /nt

[merrily]

18. Can we ask you the same question? Because I don't think your "solution" works.

Thing is, I probably would not have done most of the things that gave rise to terrorism against America.

I don't think we can necessarily rely totally on Ben Laden for candor, but he did once say that he resolved to strike at us after he saw the blood of innocent children running in the streets of Beirut after we bombed it.

[Shankapotomus]

20. Well, I think you're right

I think we were complicit in the spread of terrorism and if we hadn't invaded Iraq there would be less terrorism we'd have to address and certainly not a huge Iraq problem. So you make a strong point; my logic is a bit circular. We wouldn't have to bomb terrorists in Iraq if we did not invade Iraq.

[merrily]

21. Thank you, but I don't know if it is necessarily so that

we would not have to bomb terrorists in Iraq (or somewhere) if we hadn't invaded Iraq. There is about a century of stuff that we've engaged in in that part of the world, for better or worse, as I posted downthread to Treasonous Bastard.

However, if you tell me that shooting yourself in the foot is the solution to the bullet wound that is already in your foot, I can demur, even if I don't know what the solution might be.

[gwheezie]

2. Putin can play Stalin

Obama can play FDR and Cameron can be Churchill. When were done we can redraw countries. This time I think we should go with making them all square.
My thought is this: if Isis is a threat to this country then we should go to war. We should declare war with a vote in congress. We should raise taxes to pay for it. We should resume the draft including women. We should ration resources. We should nationalize any private industry that can contribute to the war machine. If Isis is that much of a threat then our government should be able to make the case that we have no choice but to do these things to the majority of Americans. If not then it's not worth one more American life. I am not a pacifist but we have managed to convince ourselves we don't have to commit to war as a nation. In an sttempt to wage war on the cheap with a small number of citizens sacrificing for the cause we have paid dearly with blood treasure and our souls.

[Shankapotomus]

12. I am partial to staying out of it too

if we are not threatened directly.

Though, I think we have more than enough fire power right now to defeat the terrorists and it shouldn't call for a WW2 type mobilization.

Whether we should be there or not now, we are doing something wrong when it comes to waging war on terrorists. The scourge of terrorism should have been obliterated by now.

I think what is happening is "milder" forms of Islam where women are still denied the basic rights that men have, and which are safe from world condemnation and penalty, are, in essence, incubators and refuges for the more extremist forms. If you tell men they have a right to deny women education and a host of other rights, those men are going to insist on that when they want to form their own state.

The problem is we are not scuttling the incubators of the thought that says women can be denied rights, converts from Islam should be killed, homosexuality is illegal, etc. Those "hiding" places for extremist thought remain untouched so the supply of "soldiers" for "Islam" keeps being fed.

[merrily]

22. Please don't use women and homosexuals to justify bombing the Middle East.

They have been used enough in that regard. That was never the impetus for bombing, nor will bombing help them. To the extent that more bombing gives rise to more radicalism--and I believe it does-- more bombing will only hurt them more.

IMO, using them that way has been utterly shameful on the part of the USG. Please don't join in with that.

[Shankapotomus]

24. Of course

I'm sure many women and homosexuals are still allowed to leave those countries so bombing them for those kinds of strict policies is not even required even if it were on the table.

I just wish countries like Iran would give those convicted of what amounts to religious misconduct the option of leaving as a penalty instead of the extreme ones they are made to endure. People should have the option of practicing a religion or not.

[merrily]

26. Sure, but that is another subject, not related to more or less bombing.

[Autumn]

29. In Sadmas Iraq women had rights, they were governed under civil law same as the men.

Since Bush invaded they no longer have those rights.

[cali]

36. so when do we start bombing Saudi Arabia and Qatar?

[TreasonousBastard]

4. WWII has few, if any, parallels to this mess...

We were fighting a distinct enemy for distinct goals, and the country was on a total war economy for the effort.

We didn't have much of a stomach to enter that war until Pearl Harbor, but you'll note that even after 9/11 we don't have a draft or a fully supported effort to go in there and take over the ME. We did go in and topple Saddam, who had nothing to do with 9/11, and we farted around in Afghanistan without really changing anything.

A lot of death, destruction, and broken lives but no Marshall Plan. War is always confusing and shit happens, but the incompetence and corruption in our response to 9/11 is staggering. All that horror over there and nothing, NOTHING, has been accomplished when you get right down to it.

Obama has done a little to help straighten it all out, but I can't imagine anyone doing enough.

So, al-Qaeda started this mess, but we compounded it immeasurably and now have the choice to fully invade and take it all over, which is not a choice, or just walk away.

One is impossible, and the other is immoral.

[CJCRANE]

7. Also, bear in mind that Germany was a major industrial power

and center of technological innovation, with a huge population (in European terms).

[TreasonousBastard]

9. As was Japan. And Nazism was...

as someone already said, a unique evil that we intended to erase from the planet. Islam, even of the more radical kind, is not in that league.

[merrily]

19. I drafted my replies 17 and 18 before seeing this post.

As to how to respond to the claim that more killing during World War II was a solution we should emulate today, my reaction was similar to yours. (My reply 17).

As to whether Al Qaeeda started this, I imagine Arabs would say something different. My reply 18 refers to something Ben Laden once said about the bombing of Beirut under Poppy. Of course, we invaded Beirut under Eisenhower too, but Ben Laden did not mention that, at least not in the video footage I saw. Arabs also used to say that, whenever Israel bombed them, they'd look up and see "Made in the USA." Of course, that was a metaphor, but I got the point.

We have done a lot in that region for New Jersey Standard Oil, first, and then for Israel. Whether we should have done all those things or not is way above my pay grade. I am just saying that I don't think Arabs would necessarily agree that Al Qaeeda started the whole thing. Whatever the whole thing is, it started about a century ago.

(To those tempted to say this post in any way says it was okay to fly planes into the twin towers, please resist that temptation. It doesn't.)

[TreasonousBastard]

25. You're right that there was a lot going on before 9/11...

but that was the proximate cause of going to war in Afghanistan. Iraq was then just an incredibly stupid mistake.

If parallels are to made, maybe WWI would be more fun. Central Europe was more of a mess than the ME ever was and assassinating the future Hapsburg emperor set off a declaration of war against Serbia and caught everyone in an entanglement of alliances.

So far, things haven't gotten that far out of hand. But, you never know...

[merrily]

28. As my Reply 18 suggests WWI likely contributed to the rise of Hitler and

WWI had 37 million casualties, not counting physical and emotional injuries, great or small.

More killing has never been a solution, perhaps not even temporarily.

One definition of insanity is to keep repeating the same behavior and expecting a different result.

[TreasonousBastard]

31. Oh, there's no doubt that there's a direct connection...

One of the reasons for the Marshall Plan was the understanding that Germany's treatment at Versailles caused enough problems and bitterness to help the Nazis come to power.

But, WWII was the fire that allowed the phoenix of a new Europe to emerge-- the longest period of peace and prosperity they've had yet. We saw Germans and French marching together at the Arc de Triomphe.

We still don't know how long that's going to last, but we're pretty sure it won't be repeated anywhere else no matter how much we bomb and destroy.

[merrily]

33. And another reason was probably the desire to avoid another uprising

ala the Communist revolution. IMO--and we are not likely to find records that support my opinion--it was a peaceful part of the Cold War. But, that is far afield from the thread topic. (Then again, maybe not, but I am not going to try to explain that parenthetical comment.)

As I posted earlier this morning, realpolitik would be funny if it didn't cost much blood and treasure.

[bigwillq]

5. No (nt)

[madokie]

8. After what bushco did

do you really think turning our backs to them is the right thing to do?
Personally I don't think that.
I'm the guy who says, War is an admission of failure. Wrap your head around that for a tad and I think you will get where I'm coming from when I say that

[Le Taz Hot]

10. This is all about oil.

It always has been. Instead of leading the world in developing alternate energy sources and developing products that do not run on oil we continue to chase petroleum at the peril of the entire world. Why? Because that's what the .001% wants. It was all laid out in the PNAC a couple of decades ago. What they ignored, of course, is the impact it would have not only on our own nation but of the world.

[Iggo]

13. Only to the bomb-makers. (n/t)

[GummyBearz]

23. Yep

I agree

I had a similar debate with my wife last night.

Btw, dont let the dumbass talking point of "we only did it cuz of oil" be a distraction. We didnt bomb the crap out of dresden because of oil... and we never got any cheap oil from Iraq anyway, so its just a stupid distraction at this point.

We sold our souls, they will hate us no matter what (it seems the real extremists will even hate us if we convert to a sect of Islam that isn't exactly like theirs)... so as you point out, lets just do it the right way once and for all, short of using nuclear weapons. Let the next generation Kurt Vonnegut have some writing material. Its a double win

[customerserviceguy]

27. For better or worse

we simply don't have what it takes to fight the way we did in WWII. Some see that as a positive thing, some (myself included) see that as a negative thing, and yet others don't think about it until its their lives that are personally affected. Seeing the Cold War end without an actual WWIII being fought simply solidified the "we can do this surgically" idea that still pervades the highest levels of our military.

We don't have generals who know what it is to win a war decisively, how would you expect them to develop that mentality? WWII had plenty of experienced officers who knew what victory in WWI looked like and how to achieve it.

We've possibly "outgrown" total war, and are willing to take the civilian casualties that result from limited warfare. Can you imagine a modern President doing what FDR did with Executive Order 9066, and rounding up all Islamic people in the US? Or even a lesser measure, such as rounding up all Islamic people in our Armed Forces, and quarantining them, that surely would have stopped Nidal Hasan's massacre, but we're satisfied with simply dealing with the aftermath of the tragedy rather than preventing it.

I argue that since we no longer have the will to truly win a war, and our enemies all know that if they prolong one long enough we will tire of it, and they will win, that we simply avoid getting into one wherever possible. Sometimes there will be notable exceptions, but they would be rare.

[Shankapotomus]

32. That's an amazingly valid point

I hadn't though of. The strategy that we are so strong we can just absorb the small hits and not get drawn into a large scale conflict.

That is a strategy in itself. And corollary to us getting tired is can the terrorists get tired? Is terrorism merely a trend getting closer to jumping the shark as each extreme act fails to completely overtake its foes? Being that it is mostly fueled by the young with energy to waste playing dangerous games, I can see terrorism as a "fad" like survivalism.

[customerserviceguy]

39. It manifests itself in other ways

We countenance death by vehicle travel and weapons ownership, because the freedoms to have those things are valued above the rather minimal loss of life (when compared to the whole society) that occurs. Where it is practical, we enact laws to chip away at the margins of the death toll (seat belt laws, gun safes, etc.) where those are politically possible, but at the end of the day, we're willing to tolerate the losses.

The same mentality seventy-five years ago would have produced "Eh, Pearl Harbor is so far away, and Hawaii isn't even a state. That's what happens when you get stationed so far away from the homeland, it can't happen to me." But Pearl Harbor cut right through the isolationism that had taken a grip on the United States in the years following "The Great War", and FDR was more than ready to move boldly in the direction of total war, going before Congress the next day to get a declaration of it. Today, we have Presidents who dither around with decisions for months or years, which leads to the half-hearted "well, we have to do something" kinds of measures that are doomed to failure.

Terrorists don't have that mentality, they are willing to cause as much death and destruction as is possible to acheive their aims. They've learned from Korea that we're satisfied to fight to a draw at best, and from Vietnam that if they hold out for a decade or so, that we will simply declare "Mission Accomplished" and go home, wishing to forget about our misadventures in their lands.

If a strategy against the US seems to have worked for nearly seven decades, why would an enemy abandon it?

[Shankapotomus]

43. Now I see why it's taking so long

The terrorists have that time frame in mind when they look at our past military adventures. It's also easier to create chaos than hold order together.

As I was suggesting to cali, perhaps ISIS is their worst enemy and stepping out of the way and allowing them to create an infamous reputation for brutality among their fellow Middle Easterners by reaching a deal for an Islamic State is a better strategy?

If you offer to give them a small area in exchange for ceasing terrorist operations and allowing those citizens who want to leave their area to leave, you can stop them where they are by calling their bluff for an Islamic State.

[customerserviceguy]

44. It's what will happen eventually

Just ask the North Koreans, the Viet Cong, and anybody else we've fought less than total war with, may as well negotiate it now. Even Hitler didn't declare war against the US until after we had declared it against his ally, Japan. And who's to say that he wouldn't have turned on Japan eventually, like he did on Stalin?

[Shankapotomus]

45. That was stupid of Hitler, wasn't it?

He had Germany but he was hell bent on becoming a global cancer. At that point the world has no choice but to operate.

[customerserviceguy]

48. He had extreme disdain

for the other peoples of Europe, including the Slavs. I have no doubt he held Asians and Africans in low regard, too. There's all kinds of ways that WWII could have turned out differently if at certain key decision points, different things had happened.

All we can do is hope that our present leadership learns from its mistakes and those preceding it. Unfortunately, we seem doomed to repeat them, thinking "this time is different."

[cali]

30. The comparison of the Nazis to ISIS is ludicrous

ISIS hasn't and will never have the access to resources or the infrastructure Nazi Germany had. Personally, I see ISIS as self-limiting. That doesn't mean it hasn't done real damage and can't do more. I also believe that our bombing actually extends the life and potency of ISIS as far as enlistment and appeal of their ideology.

[Shankapotomus]

38. I believe you are probably right

They feed off the West's intrusive presence, not only militarily but culturally. This convinces me even more that we should not get involved.

ISIS's worst enemy in the region is themselves. The atrocities they perpetrate in the name of Islam upon other Muslims can only hurt them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. It would be like using a sledgehammer to slap mosquitoes.

With the predictable result of a lot more mosquitoes.

[SomethingFishy]

49. +1.. our actions remind me of Elmer Fudd

who at one time tried to get a fly out of his house with a shotgun.

[Octafish]

37. At $7.5 million per cruise missile, you bet your sweet taxpayer it is.

Why do you think Carlyle Group owns Booz Allen Hamilton approved vendor spyhaus for NSA?

For the slower lurker: Because that's to know where the money is going to be.

Good for Democracy™, 2.

[Shankapotomus]

40. Ah, I see you are on top of things

I should have thought of that. Thank you.

[Octafish]

42. You are most welcome, Shankapotomus. Thank you for a very important OP and thread.

Here's what triggered my memory:

War is Swell: the Carlyle Group and the Middle East at War

And who owns what...

Behind the Curtain: Booz Allen Hamilton and its Owner, The Carlyle Group

We know who they are and, like David Crosby wanted to know in '68, on what streets they live, yet they continue to make war and humanity into fodder. And they're why we keep up the good fight!

[cali]

41. It wouldn't end it once and for all. Or are you suggesting bombing

all over the world wherever there are militant jihadists?

[Shankapotomus]

46. Not anymore

Posts by yourself and others have pretty much convinced me we should stay out of it. It's difficult though because so much of what Bush and company did over there has caused the present situation so it's kind of on us now to help in some way to alleviate the damage.