Bombing Doesn't Work, Probably

I have no idea how to bring peace to the Middle East, but in the interest of clear thinking I want to comment on a comment I often see these days on TV or read in my newspaper.  I quote Michael Kieschnick, the leader of Credo, a progressive group in San Francisco, which initiated an Internet petition demanding that Congress end the attack on ISIS. "Bombing won't work. It never works," Kieschnick said. What he meant, I believe, is that bombing by itself never works. That's the best reading. Kieschnick obviously detests ISIS, but instead of bombing he wants us to negotiate peacefully with ISIS. I doubt if that is going to work--let's keep our heads here. 

By the way, an Internet petition has the same effect on real events as a cough has on a hurricane.

The critique that bombing never works also comes from the Right, and what it means to Righties is that we should ship in a huge land army like the one I served in sixty years ago.

Here's the problem. As far as I can tell, no one is claiming that bombing by itself will work in the Middle East. Kieschnick is refuting a position no one has taken. We all agree that ISIS cannot be defeated by bombing alone. And there's another problem with Kieschnick's claim. Bombing by itself does occasionally work, depending on circumstances. I'm no historian, but I'd guess that there have been many instances when a people or a nation quit  after being bombed. I can think of two examples. One was when Churchill bombed the Kurds in the 1920s. The Kurds dismounted, stabled their horses and gave up. The other one happened in 1945 (it's hard to remember that far back).