GOP debate audience excited by prospect of killing noncombatants and innocents

[Algernon Moncrieff]

14. You are right, and that's a big part of the problem.

Let me establish at the outset: you and I are in 100% agreement re: "any intervention in the Middle East, ISIS or otherwise"

Since Gulf War I, we have not fought any war with clear-cut territorial conquest objectives. We've taken sides in civil wars -- some of which we instigated, others not (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan). We accomplished regime change in Iraq, botched the occupation, and ended up with Civil War.

In a certain sense, I agree with you. In war, nothing is off limits. However, the object has to be for one side to impose its will over the other. Would engaging in gangsterism accomplish that? Possibly, but what I think it really accomplishes it guaranteeing more terrorism. The way to fight ISIS, IMO, is to cut them off from their sources of funding. That means driving them out of the oil and antiquities business; that means cutting off "donations" from wealthy citizens of erstwhile allies; and -- if it comes to it -- it means scorching the earth in their occupied territories.