The recent Taliban offensive in Afghanistan has just resulted in huge numbers of their force dying at our hands in lopsided fights. However:
Despite over 250 Taliban dead in the last few weeks, the morale of the remaining Taliban fighters has not suffered, and their numbers do not seem to have declined markedly. This suggests that the Taliban spent the winter of '05-'06 carefully recruiting and motivating new personnel, though their training remains poor.
On the battlefield, our enemies seem somewhat immune to losing. So logically, we have to kill all of them rather than just 60%, assuming the remainder will go home. Corpses may not be capable of getting discouraged, but they do tend to just lay there rather unthreatening.
This need to kill runs counter to the technological focus of network-centric warfare that holds we can precisely disable our enemies and stun them into defeat. You know the drill. Shock. Awe. Getting inside their decision-making loops.
But the fact is, against fanatics, clean warfare isn't possible. They don't believe they are defeated even when their fellow jihadis drop all around them.
So we can grant no quarter. Our Supreme Court may keep trying to limit our ability to hold those jihadis we capture, but we are under no obligation to accept the surrender of unlawful combatants.
We can still kill our enemies, can't we?
