History never offers exact parallels, but it does have useful lessons. In assessing manning needs for Iraq, one would do well to look to prior conflicts of similar nature… one might look especially to the Boer War, in which a fractious, semi-fanatical culture was slowly ground into submission by an occupying force â€” several years after the seeming success of the initial invasion. If it sounds familiar, it should: and so the means of victory there offer an instructive thought experiment for Iraq today.
Make no mistake: those means were cruel. I have stated previously that I endorse cruel things in war â€” to eschew them is folly. The British achieved victory over the Boers by taking their women and children away to concentration camps, by laying waste to the countryside, and by dotting the veld with small garrisons in blockhouses at regular intervals. The men who remained were hindered in their movements by the wire stretching from blockhouse to blockhouse (a phenomenon that the Morice Line experience has shown would be massively more effective now); they could either surrender or die. Absent women and children, the rules of engagement were lax. From implementation to victory took under 18 months. To accomplish this required over one-quarter million soldiers.
[My emphasis; batshit Nazified desires from the heart of darkness in original.]
And just think, if he wasn’t too crazy for the Army as well as a shitbird boy, he could spearhead the stormtrooper job with his cool lightsaber!
Anyway, great, Tacky: With your latest suggestion, you’ve just equalled Adam “Put them in human-sized microwaves” Yoshida in the great ‘Flagrant Displays of Psychopathy’ contest so many wingnuts have entered.
Bradrocket adds: Hey, but at least he doesn’t use filthy language. That makes him a perfect candidate to be a regular columnist at Time.