The simple solution would be to employ bigger weapons with les discrimination.
We criticized the Japanese a lot for what they did to Nanking, but a few years later we were doing worse to Tokyo.
The tougher answer would be to surge a strong multinational force which would overwhelm and defeat in detail.
The toughest answer of all is to ignore the whole set of problems until they grow enough worse to rate atomic solutions.
Using drones to kill one or two of their officers a week isn't useless, but it doesn't seem to be quite enough.
So in any scenario if we are attacking them , we need to harm them more and faster than they can recruit and heal .
Unless the strategy is flypaper, flypaper makes sense but seems a bit cold blooded for the likes of us.
In a flypaper strategy , we would be careful not to win until there was a goodly number of enemy gathered up , then ramp up the bombardment to eliminate them.
If the strategy is flypaper , I don't expect anyone to admit it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flypaper_theory_(strategy)
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battle_of_verdun.htmThe attack on Verdun (the Germans code-named it 'Judgment') came about because of a plan by the German Chief of General Staff, von Falkenhayn. He wanted to “bleed France white” by launching a massive German attack on a narrow stretch of land that had historic sentiment for the French – Verdun. The area around Verdun contained twenty major forts and forty smaller ones that had historically protected the eastern border of France and had been modernised in the early years of the Twentieth Century.
Falkenhayn believed that the French simply could not allow these forts to fall as the national humiliation would have been too much. By fighting to the last man, Falkenhayn believed that the French would lose so many men that the battle would change the course of the war.
