what to do with a given opponent
Since we're to be engaged in warfare with Islamic countries in the near and far future, it would behoove us to know the enemy as he fits into the scheme of generic bogeymen.
Here are my types:
We have essentially, those opponents whose leadership derives power from ...
There are degrees of each and combinations as well. Some good examples are:
In the above examples, Mao and Stalin had the weakest hold on their power. They show this by having their faces in big pictures everywhere displayed. I call this basic type ... the "Big Face" guys. Saddam Hussein was a big face guy. That creep in Turkmenistan is a big face guy. The act of putting up pictures of themselves is a confession of powerlessness in the face of the one enemy they cannot really control. Only philosophy and luck can control ... the sniper.
The entire regime of these people is dependent on one person. If he goes ... all go. Those around him won't be the shooter because if "HE" goes ... they go. Kim il Sung and Castro live in constant fear of being offed by one determined guy with a CIA-issued sniper rifle and a willingness to die in the attempt. That's all it takes ... one poof and he's history. In other situations, some philosophy is offered to the people and this gains the tyrant a respite from fear because a percentage of the people will adopt that philosophy and will dutifully inform on any person who acts "suspicious" (our sniper guy).
The world always has a decent supply of big face guys. The thing to do about them is simply to kill them and then laugh about it over cocktails. Any nation should consider itself to have a moral blank check to "take out" these types with no more thought than if they were taking out the garbage. The act of putting one's image in large pictures all over the country is also a confession that the portrayed personage is guilty of crimes against humanity (namely his own people). There are no exceptions to this rule. If he has a big face ... he needs to be killed without further ado. Nothing could be worse for any country than to have this type at the helm. Civil war is preferable.
It would be a good thing to have a laser satellite capable of zeroing in on a single individual. Then, one could "singe" them all in a single day as they gave their daily dose of rant & rhetoric to the masses. And a foil helmet might save them too ;o) ... so better have some backup snipes to take up the slack. Note also that one has nothing to fear from a big face guy. Outside his own country he has no power. He's simple a laughing stock and is completely harmless. But he will chop heads and eat brains in his own country.
The Real Threat ...
to world stability lies in philosophy. If the big percentage of people will adopt and follow a philosophy, they will do extreme damage as was the case in WWII. Hitler had the stronger philosophy ... Stalin had none ... but ... he used Hitler as a bogeyman and got people to ante up ... their lives. If you can ride the wave of the dominant philosophy, your heart can soar like a bird. Such is the case in Arab countries where the philosophy of fundamentalist Islam reaches the core principles of that region. That core principle is "hatred and fear of women".
Yes, friends ... as in the case of the big face guys, these offals are held together by just this slim thread. When men and women are more or less equals, there are no wars. When women rule with absolute power and the men are nothing in their eyes ... what happens is anyone's guess as this has never occurred in human history ;o) It's always the men who dominate the women, treat them like shit ... then they go out and start killing everything in sight. Always the same thing ... woman-slave ... man-kill. It has ever been so. This is because men are supposed to kill things. They were made to kill, but they were made to kill animals and "bring home the bacon".
The antidote here is to take out the supporting philosophy (it supports the "macho") When the philosophy is religion, these types can easily be defeated by killing their god. In order to kill Allah (in the case of Islam), it is simply necessary to blow up their religious structures ... but not the cheap ones ... the really grand ones. If one simply destroys the seat of philosophy, one destroys the god who inhabits it. Of course, there is no actual god. This is a human construct and like all human constructs it can be deconstructed by humans also. Religions come an go all the time. They morph into variations as well. Today's Islam is not last centuries' Islam. Some go introspective like Christianity and some go bad (entirely extrospective) like Islam. Any religion is vulnerable at the level of buildings. All are dependent on the holy shrines, ornately decorated with gold leaf over everything and high vaulted celings, i.e. the masses are impressed by the buildings of religions ... not by the teachings of any supposed prophets.
What keeps Christinanity ;o) going strong is not the message of Jesus which is philosophically trivial, but rather the support structures decorated by the likes of Michelangelo, Raphael and a host of others artists and intellectuals who lent their support to the cause. Take away the big cathedrals and Christianity goes straight down the tube.
So, in dealing with perverse philosophies, one need only identify the structures which support that particular piece of inanity and ... blow them up. It doesn't matter if any people are killed. If you kill no one, the inanity will still collapse because its followers will necessarily be driven into "introspection" by the assault ... with the thoughts, "If we are right, why didn't our God protect himself?". Sic transit gloria, Allah.
It is important to note that all malignant philosophies stem from sexual problems in the male ... not from any profound thinking. When the general philosophy is harmonious between the sexes, there is never any warfare ... except by way of defense against the unbalanced perverts who have to validate their unnatural way of life by attacking others. This is supposed to prove the rightness of their view. It proves nothing and just pisses off normal people.
A Last Example - good people behaving badly
The best example here is the Jews in Palestine. Here the Jews (the wacky ones) claim to have a right to their religious homeland given by God to them ... exclusively. So they show their "numbers" from their new god (Hitler) and the UN takes pity on them (because they feel guilty for doing nothing about the death camps ... which they should rightly feel guilty about) and gives them ... somebody else's country ... Palestine (inhabited by Arabs continuously for many centuries).
This pisses off the camel-humpers (and rightly so). So they proceed to use force (dicktated by their religion) in an attempt to oust the Heebs from their ... er ... promised land. So far they've been forcing them now for about 70 freakin' years to no effect. Why can't they come to terms with "jews behaving badly"?
Because the correct approach to a fairly rational country which is presently misbehaving is to use the Ghandi approach. In fact, the Mahatma told them so ... long, long, long ago. Instead of confronting the Jews with weapons of personal destruction, they needed simply do what Ghandi's followers had done previously. Just walk arm in arm (but unarmed ;o) into the "maw" and let the Jews misbehave on the telly ... live from downtown Jerusalem. A few years of Jews seeing Jews beating Palestinians to death would have caused a Jewish government collapse and its succession by a moderate government. Peace be upon you.
When a people who believe themselves to be fundamentally good, see themselves as bad ... they do something to change back to their fundamental philosophical roots. It is the "weakness" of all decent people. To win against "good people behaving badly" is is only necessarily to show them what they are doing. It can take some time (ask Mohandas K), but it always will work ... and it doesn't take 70 years ... sheeeeeesh!
The last combatant in any war to be considered is "good people behaving rightly". If all is balanced and natural, the way to beat them in warfare is to possess overwhelming force. These people cannot be beaten by any of the above tactics. They have to be mauled by force. So if you don't have the force (like all the Islamic countries put together) you'd best make terms because there is no other chance (except luck ... like maybe Islam could declare war on the US and a meteor ... sent by Allah ... could wipe us all out ... it could happen).
That's the end of it.
Important: One solution does not work in another venue. You can't sing "We shall overcome" to Adolf Hitler. That's a loser there. You need number 1 and some 2.