RevDisk,
I grow tired of putting fine points on things that people completely misconstrue. So go read my post again, use your brain this time, and edit your post accordingly. Anger.
Unless my grasp of the written English language has significantly degraded, I think I read what you wrote. I edit my posts after the fact only to correct grammatical/spelling problem, or if I poorly phrased what I was trying to put across. Usually it's because I mucked up a nested QUOTE tag, actually.
I don't know where or when it occurred to me - sometime after 11 Sept. and before we invaded Iraq. But at some point I realized that if we did not see soldiers returning in body bags for the next several years, it would mean one thing: that we weren't actually fighting the terrorists.
Discuss.
Let me expand my thinking. US soldier related deaths (ie, soldiers returning in body bags) have zero to do with progress with fighting terrorism. They do happen, and will always happen in war. But unless the body count of friendly forces is extremely high, enough to physically degrade the level of readiness of our forces, it is not directly linked to progress we are making. You could lose 18 guys, kill 1,000 to 1,500 enemies, and it would not necessarily be progress. Fighting the terrorists is nice. Makes for pretty pictures on the TV and all that. Sometimes fighting brings victory. Sometimes it doesn't. Winning a war against terrorism is another discussion altogether.
An example. Libya has publically renounced terrorism, enough so that we have removed them from our "State Sponsor of Terrorism" list.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2006/66244.htmAs far as the US has announced, no US soldiers have returned in body bags from the sands of Libya since the beginning of the GWOT. But it's hard to deny that it's a significant milestone. They've renounced terrorism and WMD development since Dec 2003. They were removed from the state sponsor list May 2006. It's been a year since said decision with no backsliding. Not saying it'll always be practical or wise to reason with state sponsors of terrorism, but Libya has proven it is possible. Without soldiers returning in body bags.
Sometimes, killing needs to be done. No other choice. Sometimes, results can best be obtained by other means. Not always, but sometimes. I leave you with the words of Sun Tzu. Perhaps cliche, but cliches become cliche for a reason.
III. ATTACK BY STRATAGEM
1. Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best
thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact;
to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is
better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it,
to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire
than to destroy them.
2. Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles
is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists
in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
3. Thus the highest form of generalship is to
balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent
the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in
order is to attack the enemy's army in the field;
and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.
4. The rule is, not to besiege walled cities if it
can possibly be avoided. The preparation of mantlets,
movable shelters, and various implements of war, will take
up three whole months; and the piling up of mounds over
against the walls will take three months more.
5. The general, unable to control his irritation,
will launch his men to the assault like swarming ants,
with the result that one-third of his men are slain,
while the town still remains untaken. Such are the disastrous
effects of a siege.
6. Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's
troops without any fighting; he captures their cities
without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom
without lengthy operations in the field.
7. With his forces intact he will dispute the mastery
of the Empire, and thus, without losing a man, his triumph
will be complete. This is the method of attacking by stratagem.
