If this doesn't happen, no war to discuss, unless we contemplate seizing Iraqi territory by amphibious assault, building up a beachhead, and massing forces there. This is not a very desirable option, as it would require a fair bit of time, and Washington, for both military and political reasons, wants this done quickly.
Seriously high risk too.
This to me is bullshit.
This to me is bullshit, yes. As you said, the politicos pushing this nuttery aren't the guys who will be dying. They should be told that if they are successful in pushing this, they get to lead the first charge.
Some probably won't surrender. Each one that does is one that we don't have to fight. If a lot don't, there wil be little choice but to root them out house to house. Leveling cities is not going to be an option, for reasons too numerous to bother listing.
I think above you presumed the would get a convincing demonstration of power. If that's not the case, we may get the "house to house" scenario and heavy losses. That's could (and probably would) cause problems at home like Vietnam. Which could result in us losing another war. Which would greatly encourage bin Laden, et al. So maybe we should decide whether we're going to do the job or not. And if not, don't get into it. If so, do what has to be done. |
