[joegrundman]

I think, and i may be going out on a limb here, that Skybird's thinking on the matter is strongly influenced by Clausewitzian notions, particularly pertaining to the desirability of escalating to "ideal war" (which is i suppose total war).

I feel that Skybird does not adequately ask himself why, since the end of ww2, with the advent of nuclear weapons, and the increase in insurrectionary conflicts, the escalation to total war is not a viable option.

Also to say that since total war is not an option, the only other choice is to stay at home, is also something that can be challenged.

All great empires end up in situations of small, persistent conflicts around the periphery. And the US is a kind of great empire. What may be required is staying power and a means of handling the conflicts in a way that is not a long-term net-drain on resources (of all kinds) and not overly likely to produce war-weariness at home, something that modern democracies are rather prone to, once initial war-euphoria has worn off.

Nonetheless, these small persistent conflicts can add up, and in time do great harm to the empire.

So, i see the decision rather than as a need to raise the issue to one of a total conflict to permanently eliminate the opposition, an option which really is out of the question (even disregarding the SUBSIM flights of fantasy regarding pakistani atom bombs on western cities), the real question is, is it worth it in the long run, and if it is at present an unreasonable drain on resources, how soon can it be expected to be reduced to more manageable levels?