But you’re “we will bomb the crap out of you and watch while some third country invades you” is very abstract. What exactly does it look like in the real world? Like, is this Syria and we’re saying “stop using chemical weapons”?
If so who is the third country that’s supposed to be invading Syria with our blessings? Syria, which is a client state of both Russia and Iran?
Or is it supposed to be North Korea? How well is bombing the crap out of North Korea and cheering as South Korea invades going to work out for us?
Or is it Yemen, or Qatar, or what?
Yes, we can drop a lot of bombs on a country. Maybe they’ll say they’ll agree to what we ask them to do if we agree to stop bombing them. And then what? What was the cost of that war? What was the benefit? The costs aren’t just the dollar costs of the munitions expended on our side, the costs include the effects on our allies, our reputation, our need for stability.
Leaving a bombed out country in ruins, declaring victory, and heading home isn’t such a great strategy when that results in a failed state. What happens in failed states? Could those places become breeding grounds for, you know, Islamist extremists? How’s Libya looking these days?
If our demand is “Stop being such Islamic Extremists”, then do you really think bombing the crap out of them is going to help? Is it because they’re cowards and weaklings who will quickly knuckle under, but if someone else attacks us it just makes us more determined to fight back?
But that’s the beauty of it: if you grant that dropping bombs on said country may well get them to agree to what we ask if we’ll just stop bombing them, then we shouldn’t need to bomb them in the first place. We should just be able to patiently explain that we’re perfectly willing to bomb them until they agree – at which point they can get bombed and then agree, or skip straight to the “and then agree” without bothering to go through the “get bombed” part first.
Now, there’s a flip side to that…
…and, in a situation where they’re not going to knuckle under, then, yes, if there are folks who are happy to put boots on the ground, then we bomb until the folks we’re bombing can’t stop folks who’ll happily put boots on the ground; maybe we’ve just made 'em more determined, but, well, so what? Let them be determined!
Now, as you note, this only works if people with boots-on-the-ground enthusiasm in fact exist, and that’s not always the case. But, on the plus side, there may well be possibilities in scenarios where there’s rival factions within the target country, all the way up to civil war; kingmaker-from-the-sidelines has potential.
Right…and that’s why Libya is doing so well right now after we assisted certain factions to get rid of Qaddafi.
Let’s just say that the American track record of picking the right side in a foreign civil war has been spotty at best.
If, say, Iran called up Donald Trump and explained that they’ve sent over some well trained well funded terrorists and unless we give in to their demands they’re going to blow up an elementary school every other day, what do you think the reaction would be?
Would Americans fall all over themselves to give the Iranians what they want, so we don’t have to go through the “get bombed” phase?
Or would we spit in their eye, and even more so when they actually start bombing us?
That’s because we’re not cowards and weaklings, right? We don’t appease terrorists and blackmailers, right?
The notion that we can project power anywhere with impunity and impose our will with impunity and collect the rewards with impunity is ludicrous.
Yeah, we can bomb the fuck out of any country on Earth. But we can’t control the results of that bombing, and it could easily turn out cost us tremendously in all sorts of unforeseeable ways.
You get that I was replying to your hypothetical, right?
You said: “Yes, we can drop a lot of bombs on a country. Maybe they’ll say they’ll agree to what we ask them to do if we agree to stop bombing them. And then what? What was the cost of that war? What was the benefit?”
I’m just saying, if that’s the case – if it’s a situation where, as you say, folks will agree to what’s asked of them due to the bombing – then folks like that should skip the “get bombed” phase and knuckle under beforehand.
I then added that, if it’s a situation where they won’t knuckle under – not after the bombing, and not before – then, sure, bomb 'em not so they’ll give up, but just to smash their defenses against boots-on-the-ground invaders. In that scenario, yes, granted, they can unflinchingly show steely-eyed resolve despite the bomb blasts: standing tall and proud as guys with boots march in to shoot up the place.