4 ms·

Outmatching someone militarily doesn't necessarily forecast a short war. This is especially true if you do not have the resources or interest in total annihilat

• gress 13y ago
  I think the point is that Iraq was essentially positioned as a police action against the government - not a war against the whole country, so it has been relatively restrained, especially since Iraq couldn't hit back. An all out war against a powerful nation that could hit back would be far less restrained.
  • ItendToDisagree 13y ago
    Agreed which is why I mentioned 'total annihilation' of the enemy. But if you want to keep infrastructure or be able to exploit their resources after the war... You can't really do that. Its a decision that has to be made. Modern (21st century) war in a semi-modern (early 20th century or earlier) vein would be hard to predict for a great many reasons. But thinking that the equation would work out the same seems pretty dicey to me.
• myrandomcomment 13y ago
  I agree. Having experienced it personally I can assure your - the hands of the military were tied. They have been since the Korea "police action". If the gloves came off it would be over quickly, but very messy. If a war developed with China in this case, for whatever reason, I hope that our civilian leadership would have the sense to allow the military to do their jobs quickly. Remember the job of the military is "to kill people and break things".
  • ItendToDisagree 13y ago
    See my comment above. I agree on many points... But also see the possibility that 'total annihilation' in a pre-21st century sense of war may not be in the cards for numerous reasons.