You are referring to the short term. Sure, simple-minded violence works in the short term against nation-states, as in WWII. That was then. Did it work in the Gulf War? Obviously not, whether Hussein is implicated here or not.
The bigger problem occurs when you look at the long term 5 to 25 years. Unless we focus on defense and reduction in violence, we will see technology that can be used by teenagers to destroy cities.
search.npr.org
wired.com
Our weakness is Homeland Defense. If we were somehow invulnerable as we were in WWII we could continue to pursue WWII-type strategies a bit longer. But fewer people can create mass destruction with less education and fewer resources, as technology improves. Anthrax, airplanes against buildings and nuke plants today, advanced bio, nuclear and nano-terrorism tomorrow. Unless this threat is neutralized, we ain't seen nothin' yet.
Just using violent retribution clearly doesn't reduce the desire for use of violence by this kind of enemy, which means we'll be in martial law forever, freeze civilization in its tracks, and still have mass destruction on an increasing basis by upcoming suicidal maniacs.
Unlike Hussein, warning of a nuclear strike won't deter those who don't care about themselves or others in this life. That is why threatening escalating violence alone won't win the war, even if it wins a battle. It's much more complicated than that. We have to reduce the number of suicidal terrorists, which killing alone won't accomplish, I don't think, do you? Out of the billion Muslims do you think that the more we kill, the fewer there will be that justify challenging us to the death if the argument is simply who does the greatest violence?
Maybe I'm wrong - maybe slaughtering primitive fighters with industrialized weapons will eliminate the threat. I don't think so.
Military victories will be temporary. Better they agree to persue other activities. A few outspoken clerics that can turn the tide and create doubt among fundamentalists can save more lives than lots of B-52s, for example. Disengaging from the entire M.E. area when this battle is won, for another example.
Clearly, Afghanistan will be an occupied country; hopefully before Christmas the major cities will be cleared and remaining Taliban worn down by battles of attrition by 2002.
Any discussion of nukes costs us the moral high ground in the view of ROW, and cost us the war, imo |
