Compassionate Warfare

Gaaaagh! I spent 45 minutes writing a post, and it somehow vanished. Stupid internet.

Ok, here's a brief version.

Around DC you hear talk of "compassionate" warfare being the way we need to go in Iraq. Politics and the usual meaning of "compassionate warfare" aside (hint - its proponents aren't in favor of aggressive operations), what would compassionate warfare look like?

Assuming that the goal of warfare - even compassionate warfare - is to win by killing and capturing enough enemies to cause their compatriots to loose heart and cease aggressive actions, all warfare will include killing and holding combatants against their will.

So if the above is true, the only way to make warfare compassionate is to limit the impact/damage to American soldiers, citizens, and yes, even to true non-combatants residing in the nation in which we are conducting military operations.

And, the best way to reduce the collateral damage of warfare is to fight intelligently and aggressively so as to make the conflict as short as possible. Go in, do the job well and truly, and get back out. Less mess, less strain on both nations, and the situation is resolved.

Now, I know that warfare is complicated, and that the Iraqi front of the war on terror is especially complicated, but increasing the length of a conflict - or failing to see a conflict through to a successful finish altogether - is most emphatically NOT compassionate warfare.

Yes, you want to pick your targets with care. But you also want to be aggressive and violent enough to get the matter settled as quickly as possible - for the sake of your own troops, their families, your own home front, and especially for the people of the conflicted land itself.

This is true compassionate warfare.