"Winning Hearts and Minds" is a Terrible Policy for a Military to Adopt.

So, now I shall rebutt.Con, in criticizing my argument, says "The main goal of war is obviously not to gain friends and it’s incriminating that Pro uses this analogy. Who would go to war to make friends?" Indeed, a decent question, one to which I must respond with a question: Who would go to war with the intention of handing out food to the people of their enemy and building schools and hospitals for those people? And before Con calls this a false analogy, let me quote him again: "Pro’s source is clear that the goal is to build a functional community while avoiding as much hostile action as possible."If we use doublethink, Galulan tactics work, but when we either think about it logically, or use empiricism on where it has been attempted, we see that these tactics do not work. Con does lots of work debunking my argument, but never provides a historical example where these tactics have been seen to work. I provide the French-Algerian War, the Iraq War of 2003, and the ongoing (and expensive) Afghanistan War. Not only do these wars cost money in building communities and aide, but also cost the lives of soldiers tasked with carrying out Galulan tactics; far more than scorched earth warfare would cost.I make a passing comment which Con tries to be witty with: "Buying Friends, something every mother tells their children not to do." The way he tries to be witty is as such: " I would add that as number 1) to the list of things all mothers tell their children, the second being that Santa Claus is real, that we should reconsider." Are you sure Con, that all Muslim mothers tell their children Santa exists, or Jewish mothers? What about Buddhist mothers and Hindu mothers? What about Atheist mothers? Do all of them tell their children Santa exists? I do not mean to present this a necessarily a complete defense of my statement (which stands more on rhetorical symbolism than on literal meaning) but to demonstrate that Con, although he perceives himself as witty, is quite lacking in intellect. And now it gets heavy:Con provides a nice little dialogue to demonstrate how everybody buys friends. I will not waste the characters (although I did find the naming of characters S & B to be truly witty, Con, the only wit you've displayed so far), but encourage a third party reader to examine it for himself. What Con describes is called Quid Pro Quo, or This for That. And although I concede that this is how many friendships are made, if not all, this has nothing to do with Galulan tactics. If I may provide an example of Galulan tactics between B & S.B: "S, I am going to kick your butt."S: "No, B, don't. Please, I'll buy you lunch."B: "Okay, then I won't kick your butt."(next day)B: "I am going to kick your butt today, S."S: "What if I buy you lunch again?"B: "Fine."(next day)B: "You gonna buy me lunch again, S?"S: "B, I don't have money. I spent it all already."B: "You're gonna get your butt kicked."This is a better example of Galulan Tactics. Much like the recent Terror attacks in both the US and Europe, we see this same thing taking place with regards to the Islamic State. Instead of defeating the enemy when in Iraq, the Coalition Forces decided instead to "isolate" the enemies and buy the neutral populace. Problem is, once they left, the neutral populace was no longer being bribed by them and ISIS started to bribe them instead. If the occupation was to last a century, then perhaps Galulan Tactics might work, but seeing as that very few countries can provide so much aide with zero return for that amount of time, Galulan tactics remain inadvisable both martially and economically. Con attempts another witty remark, but fails miserably. "I’m not sure you’ve historyed before. Japan and Germany are now great allies. Last I checked their cultures remain in tact (unfortunately even bit coins won’t buy this) and we have great relations with them." First, I should like to point out that history is a noun, not a verb. I present this as evidence that Con intellectually feeble. Now, as for Germany and Japan. Neither of those two countries have engaged in Offensive or Defensive War for their own reasons since WW2. Germany merely follows the orders of the United States and Japan maintains a military which it terms as a JSDF, or Japanese Self-Defense Forces. No longer are the two former Axis powers permitted to wage war against their neighbors because they are occupied by the American Superpower. I wonder, why did these two cultures, which are historically very martial and warlike (with the history of the Germanic tribes destroying the Roman Empire and the Teutonic legacy as well as the Samurai legacy and Japan's Imperial history), what could have caused them to become so docile?Well, there was this little thing called WW2, and after German cities were laid to waste by Allied and Soviet forces and two atomic bombs were used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the peoples of those Nations did not want to be fierce again. Imagine the policy back then was to utilize Galulan tactics! Attempting to bribe the German people to not like the Nazis and the same with the Japanese....and the whole world would soon be speaking Japanese and German. The way it looks right now is that thanks to Galulan tactics, Europe may soon be speaking Arabic.More of Con's feeble argument: "So by your own add mission the war strategy you object to was not used in Viet Nam. From the beginning there have been rules in war. They used to just line up and shoot each other in the face. Maybe they were using the golden rule? Now a good general rule is don’t use nukes." First, it is 'admission' not 'add mission'.Here Con tries to refute my argument by pointing at how violent war used to be and jumps to the opposite extreme of Galulan Tactics: Nuclear War. Ultimately, this is a strawman and requires little debunking.One smart thing Con says in his inconsistent rambling: "You need to continually pay for friends and they need to pay you or you will likely stop being friends." Yes, this is true. But this has nothing to do with Winning Hearts and Minds. The US policy in Iraq and Afghanistan was not to take, but to give. Thus they did not repay at all. No Quid Pro Quo there. Again, Con shows his lack of historical knowledge: "We were too harsh with Germany and this ultimately led to world war II." He is telling a half truth, and I do not think it is on purpose. Indeed, the Treaty at Versailles was not kind to Germany, but Germany had never really been ravaged the way it was in the Second World War. Con, do you really think that an occupation, dividing the country, and giving half of it to the Soviet Union, the Army of which had just raped and raided its way to Berlin, is less harsh than the terms of the Treaty at Versailles?I feel somehow obligated to address the arguments made by Con in his first nonsensical post. "You cannot pwn a person". First, it is spelled 'own' and this would be a great argument if we were discussing the morality of slavery. However, it has nothing to do with Galulan Tactics. "You need medics, cooks, commedianists/newsmen to run a group in the best way we know. Obviously adopting hearts and minds will help not only the noncombatants in your military but also those you engage in war." We had these same jobs in all the wars where we were vicious and brutal. These are support jobs, logistical jobs necessary to war. However, Winning Hearts and Minds does nothing for them but lead to continuous deployments to a warzone where they too are placed in harm's way."Terrible references morality" I guess. Terrible can also be an adjective describing the quality of something. For example, Con's arguments are terrible. I am not saying Con's arguments are morally repugnant, just that they are worthless. Now we come to another stunning example of Con trying to think. He quotes Thomas Hobbes, most likely through a quote search through Google. He cites Thomas Hobbes, who said in his famous book Leviathan, "But the infliction of what evill soever, on an Innocent man, that is not a Subject, if it be for the benefit of the benefit of the Common-Wealth, and without violation of any former covenant, is no breach of the Law of Nature." (Hobbes, Leviathan, 360, Penguin Classics.) So it is quite obvious that although a search on Google might turn up quote in your favor, Hobbes would agree with me. Con, if you're going to try and passively argue from authority and use a famous philosopher, make sure that what he's famous for doesn't concur with your opponent's argument.https://www.amazon.com...