Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
Actually, under the logic of the times, the firebombing campaigns in Japan were justified as the only way to attack their cottage industry base. And the British made no bones about their approach to the Germans in World War II with their night bombing campaign.

The impact of both bombing campaigns (as well as the differences between the European and Pacific campaigns) have been debated for years and will continue to be the subject of debate. Air power advocates will always claim that bombing could have won both wars, while land power advocates will disagree.


Oh, I'm not suggesting that air power alone can win any war, unless we're willing to drop enough nukes on a country to completely eliminate it as a functioning society (which may ulitimately be necessary and should never be taken completely off the table).

However, a relentless campaign, waged without mercy, CAN curtail a nations ability to fight back. I'm from the old school who believes the primary goal of any war is to force the other side to quit fighting first. After that, other such niceties as helping them develop a different form of government or increase economic activity, can be done in relative peace.

Naturally, this war is a little different in that the enemy is diverse and scattered around the globe. However, we do know which nations provide funding, training, safe-havens etc, and until we end that support, by whatever means, the hydra just keeps growing more heads.