In light of the recent resignation by the Marine turned diplomat in protest of the current methodology of war in Afghanistan, I began to wonder about that policy.

I mean, what if we had fought World War II using the same principles? I doubt seriously we would have achieved the same success.

As an Air Force “brat,” born abroad and raised in Europe and the United States, I was exposed to many of the former battlefields of WWII. Of course, long gone are the war machines, but surprisingly a lot of scars remain. Far fewer scars would be evident if we or the Nazi army had decided to take a “more humane” approach to war.

War is horror of a magnitude that most can never imagine. War without a clear mission or the resolve to complete the mission regardless of casualty is pointless. Victory is either complete or short-lived.

We began attaching strings to warfare and mission goals in the Korean conflict, and have continued ever since. These strings and this method of waging war so as to be more humane should stop. War, as a good friend put it, is only useful if the objective warrants its full and unbridled application.

Full and unbridled does not imply nuclear weapons as an immediate choice. What it does imply is complete and total victory using air, ground, and sea forces in such a way that the enemy and all who harbor them are destroyed until, and pay attention to this, the enemy is ready to give complete and unconditional surrender. That means if a town, village, city or home is harboring the enemy it is destroyed in its entirety. No hesitation, no stopping until victory is achieved and only then would the monster called war be put back in its cage.

When the enemy realizes you are not totally committed, you have already lost. But if it knows you will unleash what it will not be able to bear then you have won. Just be prepared to do it.

Steve Abbott

Muskogee OK