[Varley]

Do what is required or do nothing.

If we keep pushing our young people into ventures without allowing them rein to do the job there will become a time when we cannot recruit enough of them to defend us when we really need them.

Politicians and diplomats have invented 'rules of engagement' an absurd concept in war. In order that as few of one's own young people are harmed (and, I suggest the same for the losing side when the bottom line is reached) no holds should be barred unless they are ones likely to demoralise ones own troops. Assuming a 'win' is to be had at all then it will not be had quickly if the troops are insufficient in number or supply or if they are held back by bleeding hearts. The shorter the conflict the less harm for both sides. Harm to our young people people at the expense of inadequacies of supply and artificial limitations I find unacceptable. Harm to their young people or, possibly, people in general is regrettable but less important.

For civilised management use police, handcuffs and expect to deploy beat bobbies for ever - policing in other words. For war use soldiers and heaviest metals. Overkill may be the nasty word when applied to real killing but war is nasty and unless it is treated as such it will go on for ever. Why do our leaders so often confuse the two? Perhaps they don't. Perhaps they commit only what the opposition will tolerate instead of what is required.

The defeat will mean that these primitives will go back to chopping the hands of thieves (not the worst prescription), throwing queers from high rooves, public hangings and universal incarceration of women. Perhaps there will be a small delay while they extract their revenge on those who have helped the allies. I suppose I could finish with 'god help them' but I think their god is part of the problem.