Actually there is a fair chance that destroying a city and its inhabitants would cause insurgents to think twice about killing American soldiers, in the same way Hiroshima and Nagasaki stopped the Japanese war effort. But its a nonsense.

American generals and war planners have a refined sense of proportionality. Soldiers die in wars. Its a job risk. Generals know this. So when an American soldier dies, generals know that it was a risk of the job, and instead of reducing a city and its civilian population, men, women and children, to corpses, they think of more effective ways to try and mitigate the risk.

In addition to the plain common sense of American generals, we also have American diplomats. they know that with every civilian death reported upon in the Middle East, their job to hold the line and prevents this from erupting into a pan-Arab confrontation becomes so much more difficult. Destroying Fallujah and its civilian inhabitants would render this impossible, as well as severely alienating many of America's allies in the region and elsewhere. Alienating allies jeopardises American interests in the region, as well as American citizens' lives, so they wouldn't let that happen.

Finally, we have the American public, and their right to vote. If a city was destroyed by American forces, the American public would be properly outraged at such a morally offensive war crime. Politicians supporting the war would be ousted. Americans have as sense of decency, humanity, and fair play which comes from being the world's pre-eminent democracy.

For all these reasons, and more, G-man's proposal is no more likely than the risk of my growing four extra arms and becoming a pro basketball player.

Pimping my site, again.

http://www.worldcomicbookreview.com