Punitive Expedition

I submit that it is high time we resurrected the venerable concept of the Punitive Expedition.



I once mentioned that we should begin an attack on Syria. Someone suggested that wouldn't be possible, as we'd be overstretched on patrolling and rebuilding.



I was dumbfounded, of course.



Because the whole point of a Punitive Expedition is simply to cause damage and destruction.



There is no rebuilding.



There is no patrolling.



We don't care if the current regime survives or falls.



We don't care if it creates chaos or not.



What we do care about is changing the behavior of whomever is in control, if anyone.



That means a Punitive Expedition is far stronger than a few cruise missiles. It lasts several days or weeks, and would be, say, special forces or even a brigade combat team rampaging through the countryside, daring enemy military units to approach it, as it destroys key infrastructure. Supported by airpower, precision strikes would also be made against the leadership.



Then the units come home.



And if the offending behavior doesn't cease, do it again, harder.



Repeat as necessary.



I dont know why this concept is hard to understand. But many seem to subscribe to the Powell doctrine of "you break it, you bought it."



Where did that idea come from? It seems that doctrine is just begging to play into the paradigm of "quagmire" claims -- whereas a Punitive Expedition by its very nature contains a definite Exit Strategy that the anti-war types seem so desperately to demand (ha, bet they change their tune about that quick!)



This "nation building" is really quite a strange and recent idea in military affairs. History is full of successful Punitive Expeditions, from the earliest times to, for example, Sherman's glorious March to the Sea through Georgia.



They work.



Afraid we might "rile them up"?



They're already riled!



Syria and Iran are already hostile!



Wake up and smell the Jihad.



And let slip the dogs of war.