But Brute Force May Be The Right Answer Anyway

This news article on Yahoo.com points out comments from US military officials that if forced to engage in a second war, we might have to rely on brute force, as most of our precision weapons and the systems meant to support them are tied down in Iraq. This would result in more collateral damage, and thus more civilian casualties.Is that such a bad thing?The biggest problem we have in Iraq right now may well be that while we promised ‘shock and awe’, we ended up delivering ‘aw shucks’. It may have seemed more civilized to limit the collateral damage as much as possible to stay on the good side of the local population, but it left the terrorists with the undeniable image of an ineffectual power that lacked the will to use its own weapons to their best advantage. A little more bloodshed early on may have prevented a lot more bloodshed now. But then, anyone who studies military history knows that’s a universal truth. In any event, bombing North Korea back to the stone age and then nuking the rubble may be just what the doctor ordered to make our enemies.(as well as some of our more worthless friends) fear us again. Yes, fear. Not love, fear. We’re the great power in the world today. Historically, the great power of the day is never popular with those around it. And yet we persist in this desire to make the world love us. It’s never going to happen, so we need to just get over it. The best we can hope for is for them to fear us. Maybe then, they’ll be less likely to attack us