I've often wondered if any armed force sent there to wipe them out wiould end up in a Nam type situation.
That would happen if, and only if, we ever make the mistake of allowing a war to be run from the White House instead of setting clear objectives for a military solution, then allowing the military to perform as intended.
Short version: no more political checker games. When hostile elements and regimes learn that when they pull the tiger's tail the tiger will quickly rip their faces off, then the nonsense can be expected to become less frequent.
No more nation building. No more schools and hospitals. No more "hearts and minds" programs. When a situation calls for a military solution it should be dealt with in an overwhelming manner, quickly, then we walk away and leave them licking their wounds. Take out all military targets, take out all communications, take out all infrastructure (power plants, transportation, manufacturing, water, sewer, and everything else necessary to a functional society), beat them so completely and decisively that the survivors beg for an opportunity to rejoin the world of civilized nations. Then walk away and leave the lesson to be learned readily apparent for the next generation.
If we must send in ground forces the rules of engagement should be crystal clear to all concerned, with force protection the ultimate priority. If our forces come under fire from a residential area that area should be utterly destroyed. If our forces come under attack from a religious institution or site that location should cease to exist. Military facilities located in civilian hospitals or schools remain as legitimate targers. If hostile forces use civilians to shield themselves as they engage our troops they should expect to fall on very bloody ground, and the next time they try it they won't be able to convince civilians to shield them again.
Nothing wrong with observing international conventions on civilized warfare when engaged with civilized opponents. When engaged with those who flaunt all vestiges of civilized behavior there is only one reasonable response, and that is to eradicate them and all who support them.
During WW2 if there was a ball bearing factory located in a German town, and that factory supplied ball bearings for a tank factory, the town was destroyed. Housing projects for workers at the ball bearing factory were targets secondary only to the actual factory itself. The goal was simple; destroy all capability and will to resist.
Deployment of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a horrible thing; however the prospect of invading the Japanese homeland with ground forces included projected losses of hundreds of thousands of Allied forces, including American servicemen. Japan capitulated almost immediately, and millions of lives were saved (including many, many Japanese military and civilians).
Over 12 years in Afghanistan, and nearly 12 in Iraq, and the carnage continues and grows. Might we have been better off had the decision been made to pound those nations into the dust until they begged for peace? Might there have been fewer casualties in the long run, even with an overwhelmingly decisive, and short, campaign than what we continue to count on a daily basis? I think it is likely.
I am not suggesting that we "nuke" those who attack us. I am simply saying that we have an overwhelming capacity to make life so miserable, to literally return entire regions to the stone age within a few weeks or months, forcing the bulk of the population to make changes in their national government, behavior, and alliances to avoid any possibility of ever facing the effects of such foolishness again. All of this can be accomplished with conventional weapons intelligently applied by experienced military leaders freed from excessive interference by political nonsense.
Rant over.
