Oddly enough I was in business for a short time with a fellow of the same name who claimed to be a cousin of the General; a great salesman, a very short guy without any morals, as it turned out. When he tried to take over my business I forced him out and into bankruptcy, and he had to leave town. Had he won, I would have stayed after him until one or the other of us was completely defeated. Hey, maybe he was a cousin ...
We could afford guys with the "short man" syndrome like LeMay (there were many like him and still are) in WWII, a time without the expectation of domestic terrorism from groups not affiliated with any nation-state, and technology that can give individuals the power to destroy a city. Today, those strategies only make certain more war, until one side or the other was eliminated from the Earth. A rather apocalyptic view, don't you think?
I wonder what LeMay would say today, besides our lack of any coherent homeland defense. He might advocate all-out destruction of several countries in the M.E. It would make interesting propaganda, but if acted on would cause a true jihad, not the limited, declining one we are seeing now. It would be an "us or them" situation, with millions of conversions from moderates to the enemy, and little support from the ROW.
Don't you think it's preferable to take out only those who take action against us? LeMay advocated unlimited civilian death as a deterrent. This increases the incentive for US civilian deaths by suicidal individuals, not reduces them. Of course, unfortunately, if we see more terrorism here, the public may insist on an apocalyptic course.
Once you declare "all war is immoral ", the only course is to maintain world fealty by force. Too expensive; we'd have to have worldwide martial law, don't you think? |
