| The calculation is much more complex than "collective punishment". Most states will abandon their war aims if they finally perceive them to be unachievable, or if the cost is unacceptable, even if they are not getting beaten much. That is why there is a good chance that capturing Saddam would cause some of the hostile activity in Iraq to abate: once restoring the regime is hopeless, many supporters will give up. There is only a finite number of people fanatical enough to persist with suicidal tactics, and, of course, each explosion reduces the number, so waging a war of attrition against terrorists can work in the long run. People can change their views: Hitler enjoyed popularity when it looked as if he were a man of destiny. As he made stupid decisions and mired Germany in further jeopardy, people became disenchanted and defeatist, and even the officer corps started hatching plots to assassinate him. In general, it is not just who can pummel whom the most, but the whole calculus of costs and benefits, and questions like morale, that determine the outcome......... |
