Debatable. Germany wasn't reduced to a completely non-militaristic state. As long as a country has independence they have power. The rules of the game are solid, France and Britain just f#cked up.
Such measures would still have bred resentment under the population, and coupled with the economical crisis, the rise of the nazis was as sure as the sun setting in the east.
We agree. Issue is America doesn't. Our approach to terrorism is to let them shoot and bomb us. Our enemies pursue without restraint, we pursue them at "All deliberate speed."
Well thats the problem. Terrorists arent bound by the borders of nation states. They are transnational. So, the logic that is normally used in a system consisting of only nation state actors doesnt fly anymore. Most of the time, you cant invade a country because there is an organization operating there that you dont like. On top of that, you would only be able to reach a small part of the whole organization. You would need to invade the entire Muslim world to get rid of the whole body. No way the rest of the world would let America blatantly violate a nations sovereignty without a very very good reason. And a few extremists are not a good reason. In the end, such an approach would cost America infinitely more then it would gain them. Some extra security in trade of political isolation and possible economic restrictions imposed by the rest of the world is not a good deal.
I understand the logic in your approach and I agree. Only issue is if we subscribe to that viewpoint we would both be reality impaired. No matter how many times an aggressive nation is knocked down. They will be just as aggressive everytime they get back up. Improve their economy and they'll develop weapons to destroy you. Educate them and they'll learn to make bombs. Dig them a well and they'll drown you in it. The best solution is to knock these nations down one-time in a way where they can't get back up. Ever.
If you dont want them to get up ever, you need to kill them all, poison the land and god knows what else. But again, you would work the whole world against you. They would team up, and kill you. Making it a rather ineffective strategy. And again, terrorists are not nations, they are transnational. The best you can do is make more use of the intelligence community and have them pick up individuals. And then on occasion use something like Seal Team Six. But yeah, you already saw the political blowback that action caused.
And no, I dont think that, in the case of nations at least, countries will rise up and automatically hate you. Japan got back up and they dont exactly hate the US, Germany got back up and they dont exactly hate the Allies. Most people within a nation want to live their lives in peace. And if they know the horrors of war, they dont want to go back, only to see their cities bombed to ruins again. As such, its likely they will opt for peace over war, and choose leaders who want the same. Also, if you rebuild their economy, people will get rich, they will be better off then during some war. Giving only more incentives to choose peace and economic progress over war and conquest.
Of course, I do assume that after you won the war, you keep a military presence for a time, and install some kind of democratic system in that country. If you just win the war and then back out, leaving the country to remain bitter and broken, there is a good chance they come back another time for another fight.
Along those lines I would say that you also missed the point. If 30 percent of the Muslim world is aggressive towards the west, that 30 percent should be wiped out. If it's one percent or 100 percent they need to be dealt with in the same way. Peace cannot exist between people who want it and people who do not.
There are one billion Muslims around the world. Good luck killing even 1% without uniting the other 99% against you.
