1
   

Pentagon considers new U.S. tactic...

 
 
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?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 462 • Replies: 9
No top replies

 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2005 07:53 am
Sounds a little weak to me.
0 Replies
 
rodeman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2005 08:26 am
Whatever happened to a country's sovereignty?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2005 08:52 am
How insurgent-esque.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2005 09:03 am
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.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2005 09:55 am
"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.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2005 10:03 am
Impertinent: they don't do exactly what our commanders-in-chief instruct them to do.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2005 10:07 am
Got a link for your source? Years of reading history make me sceptical of such pronouncements without seeing the source.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2005 10:10 am
Yeah - source.

This sounds more like an act of frustration than a plan.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2005 10:35 am
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.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Pentagon considers new U.S. tactic...
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 03:32:55