I’m a little confused. Is Pat saying it’s better to have open warfare than to use starvation as a tool/weapon to get the enemy to submit?
I ask because I’m thinking if we ever have a civil war again in America most of the left will flock TO the cities whereas most the freedom loving right will flock away from them if they are at all prepared. The fastest and most direct way to end the conflict will be to cut all supply routes into the cities to starve them into surrendering. Would bombing or other open warfare be more preferable according to Mr. Buchanan? It seems to me far less damage and loss of life would happen from the starvation method when given two bad choices.
Actually Pat would be right if that’s what he means.
Conquer or get out of there. Anything less is about pride.
One sure way to find out: ask him if we should've dropped the Atomic Bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima and see what he says.
By all historical accounts, doing so SAVED MILLIONS OF LIVES on both the Japanese and American sides as a conventional land war would've cost anywhere from 6,000,000 - 10,000,000 American and Japanese lives since Japan was prepared to fight to the death.