Quote Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Holding a sympathetic city "hostage" deserves a very harsh response--like levelling it and leaving only the historic mosques.
Quote Originally Posted by Redleg
Will it burn a city down if used in the a way not consistent with marking targets - yep
Quote Originally Posted by Watchman
...you know, I just started wondering if the whole thing was actually meant as a warning message to the resistance and their sympathizers ? "Oppose us, or harbor those who oppose us, and this is what happens" ?
Seems like you are right about what happened in Fallujah. Chemical warfare, meant both to incinerate and to intimidate in the longer term. The insurgents have known about this chemical attack on Fallujah since day one, because they have been very vociferous about it. The larger public was mostly in the dark since the chemical attack never made it into the official declarations.

The same intimidation protocol would apply to the U.S. policy with regard to secret interrogation centres. The insurgents know they will be tortured and maybe killed, the public is given reassurances that 'we do not torture'.

Maybe the United States' answer to asymmetrical warfare is asymmetrical publicity?