5 ms·
I would say he missed the biggest reason: Because we've changed the definition of "winning". It used to be that you just trounced the enemy army and didn't gi
by adwf 12y ago
I would say he missed the biggest reason: Because we've changed the definition of "winning". It used to be that you just trounced the enemy army and didn't give a damn about what the country looked like afterwards. Go in, kill them till they surrender. This is true of pretty much every war before 1950.
Nowadays we're generally not fighting an established government but instead some form of guerrila force. There is no-one to declare a surrender, therefore the war will never really end.
- discardorama 12y ago> It used to be that you just trounced the enemy army and didn't give a damn about what the country looked like afterwards. You're forgetting the Marshall Plan.
- adwf 12y agoThat was a consideration after the war, not during. Nowadays we hold back from razing entire cities like we did with Dresden/Nagasaki/Hiroshima.
- haberman 12y agoFriendly note: I think you mean "razing."
- adwf 12y agoWhoops, edited thanks!
- laurencerowe 12y agoFallujah was razed. Phosphorous incendiaries were used as in Dresden. Casualties were much lower though as most of the population had fled by that point.
- rodgerd 12y agoAnd razed to support mercenaries, as well! Not a good look hearts-and-minds wise.