Well, if the point is to advocate total war, then go ahead and do so. Ken, you certainly made it better than he did. But it's un-PC to advocate total war, so instead, he skirts the issue by
1) lamenting the PC-imposed limitations
2) drawing an analogy to WWII without completing the analogy. So if we're to conduct this war like WWII....what exactly do we do? I won't put words in his mouth, but he doesn't offer any such vision.

The result is useless wistful thinking about what could be rather than actionable recommendations on alternatives. I've come to expect that from political ideologues. I don't expect that from a professional magazine - I expect more useful recommendations than "PC and civilian ethics are bad". That the level of discourse doesn't, in this instance, rise above what I see from the political side, is my beef with the publication.

Would they print your comments? If so then we can have some honest discourse about the cost/benefits of total war. If all we can do is blame scapegoats....I can read that elsewhere.