A reply to my Administration crackback

3) Your view of war is confusing. You say that in war, you destroy the enemie's ability to fight back, whether that be breaking his will to fight, or by removing his ability to re-supply, but then you say that we are supposed to play by the rules. That sort of activity is very much against the rules.

Esta cierto. My beliefs on war are very confusing and one might even say contradictory. To begin with, I believe there is no justified war of aggression. I further believe that any war that starts outside your borders is a war of aggression. It is interesting to note Rome never fought a war of aggression (they claim). Their defensive wars led to one of the largest empires in history. The U.S. has fought nothing but defensive wars some people still claim. Many people will dispute this...for instance, Germany did not attack the U.S. in WWII (although they did declare war before our involvement).
However, the U.S. was a VERY active participant in that war prior to 1941. In fact, before the war started the U.S. was waging economic war on Germany. Many people will justify this based on human rights violations...and that is a valid point I will not dispute.However, raising guns against them is still a different thing. It is a direct attempt to end the life and free will of another person.
Once war is joined I believe in whole-hearted prosecution of that war. Do whatever it takes to protect your people. The international laws are...spotty at best. Who really knows what is legal and what is not? Bu tI will say this; as much as I am against being in Iraq, the way I would wage war if I were Commander in Chief will horrify you.
Here are the rules, and these are inhumane, indiscriminate, and probably monstrous. So be it.
- If the enemy persists in dressing as civilians and firing from abush the civilians have two choices; 1, turn in the snipers/bombers/etc. 2, face the Shock and Awe bombing that will follow the withdrawal of my troops from the region.
This would result in huge collateral damage to be sure. Just as the Twin Towers, the Oklahoma City bombings, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Hamburg, London, Paris, and many other bombings have. I believe it was General Sherman who said "War is hell". If history teaches us anything about the "right"way to wage war it is that gentleman warriors always lose to practical warriors. Scorched earth ends wars.
If the enemy chooses to fight on the battlefield, that is how and where we would fight. If not, I will fight their war, but I will fight it my way. If my casualties continue to grow then I would unhesitatingly drop a nuclear bomb.
Yes, you read that right. As despicable as it is, my job as military commander is to win the war and protect my boys. If I can't pound a nail with a hammer and am breaking my thumb trying them I will use a sledgehammer.
Interestingly enough, did you know there are rules for blockades? England broke them first in WWI. Their blockade was illegal according to international law and treaties they themselves had signed. Denying the enemy the ability to resupply is not only completely legal, hence according to the rules, it is wise.
So as to the confusion of how I view war, you are absolutely correct. It is very confusing. I would never go to war, if I were President every U.S. soldier would be within U.S. borders, and I do not mean some enemy occupied territory (Guantanamo Bay, anyone?) or friendly nation leasing me bases (Japan, all over Europe). No, I mean the lower 48, the 2 separate states, and POSSIBLY places such as Puerto Rico...although that is pretty iffy. Either you are part of the U.S. or you aren't.
You would be hard pressed to get me to go to war because I believe it is wrong, wrong, wrong. However, if I went, I would go so hard that there was nothing but little glowing corpses left of my enemies. My boys are more important than the enemies.
I know that does not make sense....but I hope it kind of does.