Being aggressive in war leads to peace

Idiot calls for talking with Hamas. Hamas doesn't want a 2 state solution. Hamas is heavily armed and well funded. Hamas would just as soon see then entire Gaza strip bulldozed and every Palestinian killed than stop fighting. There is no talking with radicals like that. And it's a fallacy to say Israel can't destroy Hamas. Israel simply hasn't had the will to do what's necessary to destroy Hamas because the international community won't support them. The president must stop these doomed road to peace processes. They haven't worked for 40 years, and they will never work as long as Hamas and Hezbollah are armed. The focus needs to be on disarming or destroying those organizations, then some roadmap to peace can be followed.

He also makes a similar claim about Muqtada al Sadr, but the facts on the ground suggest his proposal is exactly wrong. What the battle of Basra proves is that crushing the enemy creates the conditions for peace. His idea that we fight too much and talk too little is exactly backwards. Our problem is we keep trying to fight politically correct wars instead of crushing the enemy. A fanatical enemy will only sue for peace when they are faced with destruction, and in some cases not even then. This is common sense, and its borne out every time. All these calls to talk with fanatics are counterproductive because they promote the fiction that negotiations can lead to peace. You can only negotiate successfully from a position of strength.

As Gen. Petraeus has proven, our troops should always aggressively fight and destroy our enemies. Aggressively destroying the enemy saves lives. Aggressively destroying the enemy wins allies. Aggressively destroying the enemy creates the conditions for peace. Negotiating with the enemy and leaving him powerful creates the conditions for perpetual war - which is what we've seen between Israel and the Palestinians and what we saw in Iraq until Bush put Gen. Petraeus in charge.