“Bombing is not a strategy.”
I read Ya there. Ask Japan after Hiroshima or Nagasaki about its effectiveness. Or the folks in Tokyo, Hamburg or Dresden about the effectiveness of firebombing.
Meanwhile ISIS is writing the book on total war, or at least reading and interpreting Mohammed's book on that topic.
It really is too bad that we can’t carpet bomb ISIS. Unfortunately it’s sort of a hostage situation over there so we can’t do the brute force thing.
>>“Bombing is not a strategy.”<<
A wider middle eastern war will truly ramp up when Israel begins dismantling Iran’s nuclear program.
Then, it will be on.
That's kind of a straw man. Sure we brought hell down on those places with our incendiary bombs and nukes, but those wouldn't have won those wars. Germany and Italy had to be taken on the ground. Japan would have still needed to be taken on the ground, with millions lost on both sides, if they hadn't surrendered(I believe it was going to be called "Operation Olympic"). Luckily those two Nuclear bombs took away their desire to fight on. Now, THAT was some 'Shock and Awe'.
Strategic bombing requires an infrastructure that can be comprised or a land that will be defended. This enemy is more akin to the Mongols—conquest for the sake of conquest. Khan was never defeated (though killed by his wife), but his sons lost the empire to infighting.
There is a reason the Barbary Coast is in the Marine Corps hymn. These bastards will only be defeated the old fashioned way: total annihilation.