Avatar feed
Responses: 7
Capt Jeff S.
4
4
0
I'll take exception to #12. I think that killing for killing's sake is a typical mistake made by the attrition warfare types. If you kill a bunch of the enemy, you may decrease their ability to fight you right now, but you've just increased their desire/will to fight you another day. You want to beat them in such a way as you win decisively, but are humble and gracious in victory. You want to earn their respect, without rubbing defeat in their face. In doing so, you will be perceived as professional. You will have given them the ability to accept defeat with honor AND you will have effectively taken away much of their desire to fight you in the future.
(4)
Comment
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
Capt Seid Waddell
>1 y
Capt Jeff S., I disagree. The enemy must be broken first - and know that they are broken - before being humble and gracious in victory has any effect. Hiroshima and Nagasaki spring to mind.

Going soft too soon only prolongs the resistance - and the war, IMHO.
(3)
Reply
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
Capt Jeff S.
>1 y
Capt Seid Waddell - I think we are getting into semantics. What you speak of is is what I was alluding to when I said "You want to beat them in such a way as you win decisively." You want to make it as violent and ugly as possible so that they welcome the relief when the ass-kicking stops and thank you for going easy on them. They should have no doubt that if they act up the ass-kicking could resume at any time of our choosing and that it will be much worse for them.

We don't want them to think of us as evil, but rather as logical, rational human beings that don't take pleasure in being violent toward them and/or killing them. War is an ugly business... It's the last resort when diplomacy fails. We want them to see things our way and if they see us as evil and vile people*, it will be very difficult to have peace with them. If they see themselves as having brought this ass-kicking on themselves by their own disagreeable actions, then there's hope of reaching a conclusion that we can both agree to.

* which is why I don't think it's a good idea to have gays and tg's in the military (as most cultures on Earth consider them perverse and wicked). Like it or not, the members of our military are ambassadors and we want to present our best side to those we come in contact with. We don't want to offend or confuse people in the countries we visit. It is not our job to force our cultural beliefs on others. We should be respectful and tolerant of the beliefs of others. And no, that doesn't mean caving to the demands of a loud and raucous minority that thinks everything should be done their way.
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Maj Marty Hogan
3
3
0
Yep fairly bad ass. Thanks SFC (Join to see)
(3)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter
3
3
0
Or not listed there from General Curtis LeMay, in WWII ref the firebombing of Japan " We'll bomb them back to the stone age ! "
(3)
Comment
(0)
SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth
SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth
>1 y
That's a real good one SMSgt McCarter.
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close