Yesterday I was rambling and writing to myself as I pondered the question of whether any specific population in the Middle East had affirmative duties in regard to quelling the Al Quead (sp?) monster, and came to a vague conclusion in the negative.

Today I will try not to ramble, but the questions I'm absorbed with are those concerning the objectively rational guidelines for use of military force, the extent thereof, and the threats thereof ("coercive diplomacy.")

There is an excellent short essay on this topic as it applies to recent history to be found at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/military/force/article.html

This essay will not give anyone much comfort. There ain't no easy way out.

I am reminded of a fungus identified a few years back which is a single organism in the subsoil and which can extend over many acres. If this fungus were ecologically damaging, its eradication would require exceptional sophistication. Flamethrowers wouldn't work. Strengthening the affected populations to increase resistance would be a likely partial solution. Oh oh, I'm rambling.

"... when the stakes warrant, where and when force can be effective, where no other policies are likely to be effective, where its application can be limited in scope and time, and where the potential benefits justify the potential costs and sacrifice. There can be no single or simple set of fixed rules for using force .... Each and every case is unique." -- President George Bush, "Remarks at the United States Military Academy," January 5,1993