Unquestionably Strategic bombing is not as accurate as Tactical bombing, and unquestionably bombing alone cannot break an enemy completely. But then statistically, tactical bombing is not all that flash either. If the objective is to kill or incapacitate the enemy then statistically airpower is responsible for less than 5% of casualties. Thats a figure somewhere below small arms (ie the persoanl sidearms of the individual soldier).
Some years ago the US army looked into this in detail. Over 60% of casualties continue to be inflicted by traditional tube artillery, followed by mortars and RPGs followed by MGs follwed by armour. Then comes small arms and a distant last is airpower.
Yet this simple scalp counting devalues the contribution of tactical bombing in the extreme. Most observers will acknowledge that without the threat of airpower, it is virtually impossible for ground forces to win battles. The experiences of the Germans in Normandy attest to that. Tactical bombing has an essential mission, but its not what most people think it is.
Similarly, strategic bombing also has a mission, and achieved far more than a simple 'did it win the war" question will give. I'm not a vietnam vet, but I was trained by guys who were. They were adamant...airpower was absolutley necessary to defeat the VC. The most important mission for airpower isnt tactical or strategic strike....in fact its recon and resupply to be honest. However I will bet the house that the VC, whilst not defeated by airpower (and i would point out, they were not defeated at all, by any arm) would have been very happy and far more effective if the heavy bombing campaign directed against them had been discontinued.
In the context of WWII, strat bombing did not win the war, but it sure had a massive influence on the outcome. There were direct effects on production, manpower availability, equipment and acquisition choices by the enemy, destruction of enemy airpower and the list goes on and on. I see this critique about strategic airpower as being strangely incongruous. Why are we not raising the same concerns about the US sub camapaign aginst Japan for example.....it didnt cause the surrender of Japan, yet it would be a brave person to claim that the campaign was anything but a resounding success.
The achievements of airpower are only a failure in WWII if measured against the bombastic claims made by the prewar suporters of airpower. Similar conclusions can be drawn about the effects of airpower made during the Vietnam conflict. There were political reasons for the inflated claims made on behalf of bombing there. The effects of airpower during the falklands or a myriad of unreported naval missions repeatedly show that airpower is absolutely essential, in whatever guise it takes. Returning to WWII, without strat bombing, the British in the dark years of 1940-42 would have had no hope of any prospect to hit back at the enemy.
As for the genocide debate, that doesnot wash with me at all. In the case of the germans, they brought it all on themselves, and could expect no mercy, no quarter, until they threw their hands up in surrender. modern war means war on the entire population as far as I am concerned. If war was waged in that fashion, which is the way it had been until very recently, we would not be nearly so quick to race for the gun each time there was a dispute between nations.....if Bin Laden knew that the response to his tom foolery was a massive retailiation on all that he holds dear, including nuclear strikes, he would not have done what he did
There are many, many, intangible s to consider in this debate.