Reply
Mon 7 Nov, 2005 07:49 am
In light of America's experience's in Bosnia/Kosovo and Iraq, the U.S. National War College has come up with a new strategy for dealing with unruly or impertinent provinces (Formerly countries) know as "Smash and Run."
Smash and Run says that since the object is to punish bad behavior and since it is obvious many nations are incapable of engendering fully democratic modern capitalist states... in light of the damned if you don't damned if you do world attitude towards the U.S.... what the U.S. should do in the future is to destroy the military-economic power of opponents without the drawn out expensive politically vulnerable attempts at reconstruction of the defeated nation.
This policy would call for quick devastating war, followed by U.S. withdrawal. If the power remained defiant, the would again be destroyed ad inifinitum. This policy plays to U.S. strenghs and minimizes U.S. weakness. Since America is virtually invinceable on the battlefield and virtually immune from counterattack it seems a logical alternative to me.
What do you think?
Sounds a little weak to me.
Whatever happened to a country's sovereignty?
we are being run by leaders with murderous hearts and souls, so this is certainly the next logical step.
and before someone tries to excuse that behavior by bringing up other heartless murderers remember this post is about OUR leaders.
"Unruly or impertinent" do not define clear and present danger to the national security of the US.
That must be the only motivation for war...CLEAR and PRESENT DANGERE to the security interests.
What describes unruly ir irrelevant.
Impertinent: they don't do exactly what our commanders-in-chief instruct them to do.
Got a link for your source? Years of reading history make me sceptical of such pronouncements without seeing the source.
Yeah - source.
This sounds more like an act of frustration than a plan.
More than that, Roger, it sounds like some radical's attempt to smear the military authorities. You know well that i'm no conservative, so you can bet my scepticism is based upon the implausibility of the entire story.