Opinion: Dropping massive bombs on impoverished countries is no way to win a war

To the editor: First, President Trump sent dozens of missiles to hit Syria. Next, the “mother of all bombs” — the military’s most powerful nonnuclear device — was dropped in Afghanistan. A lot of noise, yes; carnage, not so much. The estimated death toll from both encounters probably won’t exceed 70, while a single suicide bomber can kill that many people at once for a lot less money. (“Air Force drops ‘mother of all bombs’ in Afghanistan,” April 13)

These two actions did more to make a decisive statement for public relations purposes than to deter our adversaries from conducting business as usual. Syrian planes took off within hours of the U.S. strike, and I would bet the Afghan tunnels will soon be operational.

Regardless of who lives in the White House, this Middle East quagmire won’t go away in our lifetimes. We can unleash missiles from distant warships or drop the “mother” bomb from an airplane and say job well done, but our wheels will continue spinning until we commit enough troops to get the job done.

Don A. Norman, Los Angeles

..

Friday’s front page said the bombing in Afghanistan is evidence of a “more robust military strategy under Trump.” Setting aside the fact that no “strategy” has been explained to us, I wonder which of these definitions of “robust” The Times had in mind:

Strong and healthy; suited to or requiring bodily strength or endurance; rough, rude or boisterous; or rich and full-bodied.

The most powerful nation on Earth dropped its most powerful nonnuclear bomb on a sparsely populated wasteland, and this is robust? This may not be “fake news,” but it sure is cosmetically altered news.

Robert Von Bargen, Santa Monica

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook