The use of force

INDCJournal: Momentary Confusion - Vexing Asymmetry

There’s a common idea, almost exclusively promoted among right-wing pundits, that more force is necessarily more effective force. It’s an instinctive position among those that share the Jacksonian mindset. I should know, as I also instinctively gravitate towards an aggressive default position, and the weight of precedent is on this judgment’s side: the vast majority of conflicts throughout human history have been a contest won by those willing and able to apply the maximum amount of force.

But the global war on terror is a wildly asymmetrical conflict that’s only going to grow more frustrating and complex as the ubiquitization of destructive technology erases the easy lines of nation states, and consequently mutes the effect of the kind of total warfare that historically pushes political solutions.

A thought-provoking article by the too-infrequently-posting Bill.

Comments

  1. John the Marine wrote:

    More fire power! Gunboat Diplomacy! Yeehah… Get some! Yeh, Get some!

    Leave a smoking crater and let the U.N. pick up the mess.

    Sorry, I forgot to take my meds.

  2. The Sanity Inspector wrote:

    There’s really no second-best substitute for turning terrorists into pink mist.

  3. John the Marine wrote:

    Ah, The Sanity Inspector uses words to paint a beautiful picture while simultaneously stating the obvious truth. Bravo Sir… Bravo!

  4. Bill from INDC wrote:

    There’s really no second-best substitute for turning terrorists into pink mist

    .

    Which specifically comments on the linked post in what way? Might you think I want to swaddle them in hugs and eskimo kisses?

    Just curious.