Omar, questioning my framing the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars as leisurely responses to terrorism, replies: *I think you are confusing representation and reality, Eric. Iraq may have seemed not so terrible in the US media, but take a look at the current Iraq Body Count <snip> I would guess that for those 8437 to 10282 civilians killed, their families, friends and so on it couldn't have been so pleasant. Certainly, Omar, but I was thinking of scenarios far worse than a few tens of thousands killed. An old military axiom states that if a war is bitter and prolonged enough, the two enemy forces will come to resemble each other. When the two sides begin to resemble each other, the real brutality begins. If the United States were seriously damaged or repeatedly struck, it's not hard to imagine US tactics becoming far harsher than they are now, just as in World War II, when the cruel Japanese treatment of Allied prisoners led to cruel treatment of Japanese prisoners, and ultimately made the bombing of Hiroshima an easy call for Truman. If the US were "fighting for its viability," almost any measures could be justified. To pick a less apocalyptic example, the rules that govern use of missiles and bombing would change. In the past, US rules prevented strikes on Mullah Omar for example. But after a prolonged war, those rules would likely disappear. Possible al-Qaeda in a village? Destroy the whole village. Possible weapons on a Syrian freighter? Sink it. And so forth. For comparison, Omar, look at the huge civilian death tolls in World War II Europe. With advances in weapons technology, real brutality could make that seem slight. War has its own momentum, and it was this prospect of "terrible measures" I was denouncing. Eric ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html