I'd like to go ahead right now and refute just about everything that's usually said about how to fight war. In replacement, I'll offer my own method, which I call decapitation strike theory. Here's how it works: say Saddam Hussein moved against Iran, through invasion or rocket launches, or something else that constitutes an act of war. In retaliation, rather than sending hundreds of thousands of young men to die in jihad, the Revolutionary Council of Iran sends commando teams into Baghdad, and, in conjunction with precision bombing, eliminates Saddam Hussein himself.
Why not? Why not use decapitation strikes instead of standard warfare? It seems to make sense. I mean, we don't use war to grab territory anymore, and even so, if we wanted to, all we'd have to do is eliminate any nationalist leadership, and install our own people. And if someone decides to bushwhack us, we'd tell 'em who's boss.
Now, decapitation strikes have been used before. The most famous of these was Tripoli 1986, when US fighter jets bombed Muammar Qadhafi in retaliation for a terrorist attack on a Berlin discotheque where US servicemen were killed. However, this also proved the biggest point about decapitation strikes: bombing by itself doesn't work. With a commando team, you make sure that your target is eliminated. However, aircraft work perfectly in a support role. For example, if commando teams have laser units, they can be used to pinoint targets for PGMs. Also, an A-10 Warthog with a GAU-8 Avenger cannon on the nose could wipe out any ground targets that are hassling the commando teams. Frankly, the combination of a good CAS (close air support) aircraft system (airplanes or helicopters) and a crack team such as the SAS.
The biggest problem with using something like a decapitation strike is the political/moral implications. However, Augustinian and Aquinian just-war theories both seem to prove out that a decapitation strike is one of the most moral of forms of warfare, because it reduces collateral casualties, as well as the number of soldiers killed (so there, Mr. Kulik, and thanks, Fr. Winters.) Politically, the problem arises that thanks to the CIA, Congress passed a law making it illegal for the United States to be in the assassination business. However, one could argue that with a declaration of war (which we should have more often, anyhow), it wouldn't be an assassination, but rather an act of war. The other political conflict is that one intelligence professional (I can't recall who) once said that "being in the assassination business is risky. Why? Because what you do unto others will be done unto you." And it's a good point. All it means is that we have to beef up our executive protection details. And anyhow, most nations don't have the resources to carry out a decapitation strike, excepting suicide attacks, which are nigh-impossible to defend against anyhow.
But I think that decapitation strikes would be a sensible form of fighting our wars. Someone once said that all wars should be fought by putting the leaders in a boxing ring, and whoever wins the fight, wins the war. This isn't that, but it brings the battle closer to the leaders. And that's important. Any leader who feels invulnerable during time of war is more likely to do something illogical and irrational. In addition to this, decapitation strike could possibly function as a deterrent, in that if a leader or group of leaders is contemplating the possibility of aggressive action, the threat of direct retaliation might, I repeat, might, make them think twice before what they do. But you never know...