View Single Post
      08-11-2014, 09:11 PM   #243
Dalko43
Captain
167
Rep
894
Posts

Drives: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
I meant to say before and didn't...

In all those example, my answer is the same: they did not punch hard enough. I don't care how hard they did punch or tried to punch, or why they didn't punch harder. It wasn't hard enough. Period.

If it's the case that they could physically punch no harder, then it was incumbent upon them to withdraw, the loser or both sides depending on the situation. Once it's clear that one cannot win a war, one's duty to one's own people is to withdraw to at least save them from being slaughtered. If the other side lacks the means to slaughter them, they too must withdraw, for the sake of their own people.

If you've hit as hard as you can and it's not enough, there's no point in hitting more; that would be a waste of resources, physical, human and temporal. Like it or not, you have to go back to the table and agree a compromise or live forever in fear of "stupid sh*t" like bombs in random cafes and whatnot. Believe me, nobody wants that sort of foolishness in their life, not the bomber and not the bombed.

All the best.
You don't have experience in the matter, so I don't know why you talk with such confidence. The French did "punch" hard enough, they were notorious for rounding up all military age males in Algerian villages and executing them. They deliberately leveled entire villages in order to depopulate areas. The Russians poisoned wells, laid booby-trapped toys for Afghan kids and summarily executed any Afghan male they thought was a threat....They punched as hard as any military of that time could. Their problem was not that hey lacked military power or resources, it was that they never had the support of the people they were trying to insulate from these insurgencies.

Alexander the Great "punched" as hard as well...when conquering modern day Iran and Afghanistan he sacked and exterminated entire cities and towns, wiped out the tribes (women, children and all) that opposed him. He still faced a never ending insurgency from that area. Even when the rules of war were loose at best, combatants engaging in total war rarely found outright success simply by punching..those who found victory almost always had some element of political intrigue and diplomacy.

This "punch" hard until the enemy doesn't want to fight method has been tried over and over again and has almost never worked, especially in counter-insurgencies. There's a saying for counter-insurgencies: "You can't want it more than they do." The people you are fighting for, or the ones you are trying to win over, need to want a political/military victory as much as the intervening party. That's why the US lost Vietnam, or at least withdrew. That's why the French lost Algeria, and the USSR lost Afghanistan, and Sun Yat-sen lost China.

Last edited by Dalko43; 08-11-2014 at 09:16 PM..