The title to this and the preceding post is borrowed from the American Civil War. "South Carolina must be destroyed" represented a shift in Abraham Lincoln's strategy to total war. South Carolina was destroyed, as was Georgia.
America is said to be at war. This site agrees. It is said that America has been at war since September 11, 2001. Yet America has not waged total war as it did on Southern Americans during the latter Civil War. It is said that la cosa nostra now is different, that America is fighting an "unconventional" war and, explicitly and implicitly, that America must fight differently and unconventionally.
This site disagrees with regard to Pakistan. America should wage total war on Pakistan.
Part of the difference asserted is that America's enemy now is "terrorism;" or sometimes it's phrased as "Islamic terrorism." Very amorphous, very "different." This site disagrees with regard to Pakistan. It's Pakistan, a clearly defined state which has attacked America.
Today "total war" means something different indeed than it did in 1864 and 1865. America has nuclear weapons: "unconventional" weapons. Pakistan has nuclear weapons too. America should destroy Pakistan's nuclear capability with the most efficacious means at its disposal. If that means nuclear weapons, so be it. If it can be done as efficaciously without, so be that.
America should follow up the destruction of Pakistan's nuclear capability with the destruction of the Pakistani state. It is not just Pakistan as a political entity that must be destroyed however. This is not, as it was said of the Soviet Union and the United States, a war of governments but not peoples. This is a war, we recall the Civil War once again, of the Pakistani people, by the Pakistani people, on the people of the United States. America's war should be on the Pakistani people, not "just" on the state. It should be, recalling World War II, as America defeated Japan, with nuclear weapons if need be, without them if not.
None of this should be done without a formal declaration of war. America has slid from that grim, necessary task since World War II. American presidents have not asked the American people to focus on war as calling for a formal declaration does. The result has been a deadly game of ostrich imitating: 50,000 American dead in Korea; another 50,000 in Vietnam. "Declaration of war" is not synonymous with "total war" but total war is unthinkable, literally to the American people, without a declaration of war. American presidents bled over 100,000 American lives away in Korea and Vietnam because they did not fight total war. It says here American life is worth that effort.
Pakistan has been a deadly enemy of America since September 11, 2001. On September 10 and 13, 2011--at least-- Pakistan attacked America. Pakistan must be destroyed.
America is said to be at war. This site agrees. It is said that America has been at war since September 11, 2001. Yet America has not waged total war as it did on Southern Americans during the latter Civil War. It is said that la cosa nostra now is different, that America is fighting an "unconventional" war and, explicitly and implicitly, that America must fight differently and unconventionally.
This site disagrees with regard to Pakistan. America should wage total war on Pakistan.
Part of the difference asserted is that America's enemy now is "terrorism;" or sometimes it's phrased as "Islamic terrorism." Very amorphous, very "different." This site disagrees with regard to Pakistan. It's Pakistan, a clearly defined state which has attacked America.
Today "total war" means something different indeed than it did in 1864 and 1865. America has nuclear weapons: "unconventional" weapons. Pakistan has nuclear weapons too. America should destroy Pakistan's nuclear capability with the most efficacious means at its disposal. If that means nuclear weapons, so be it. If it can be done as efficaciously without, so be that.
America should follow up the destruction of Pakistan's nuclear capability with the destruction of the Pakistani state. It is not just Pakistan as a political entity that must be destroyed however. This is not, as it was said of the Soviet Union and the United States, a war of governments but not peoples. This is a war, we recall the Civil War once again, of the Pakistani people, by the Pakistani people, on the people of the United States. America's war should be on the Pakistani people, not "just" on the state. It should be, recalling World War II, as America defeated Japan, with nuclear weapons if need be, without them if not.
None of this should be done without a formal declaration of war. America has slid from that grim, necessary task since World War II. American presidents have not asked the American people to focus on war as calling for a formal declaration does. The result has been a deadly game of ostrich imitating: 50,000 American dead in Korea; another 50,000 in Vietnam. "Declaration of war" is not synonymous with "total war" but total war is unthinkable, literally to the American people, without a declaration of war. American presidents bled over 100,000 American lives away in Korea and Vietnam because they did not fight total war. It says here American life is worth that effort.
Pakistan has been a deadly enemy of America since September 11, 2001. On September 10 and 13, 2011--at least-- Pakistan attacked America. Pakistan must be destroyed.
