No. I find the crime-fighting model to be useful here, in thinking about Stalin-worshiping Saddam Hussein. Certainly many crimes go unpunished, are never solved, or not correctly solved when they *are* prosecuted. Still, society finds it useful and supportable to worry and mobilise about the conceptual "tiger" that may be lurking in the shadows, whether they may be the exact same tiger, or had WMD, or not.

If we are actively and effectively "reasoning" with simple mentalities on a public stage, what could be more eloquent, then, than rolling up an entire country or two, in response to an arrogant, cheeky, even *unpolite* sneaky attack like on WTC civilians, 9-11, or invaders of Kuwait? If the threat is sufficient, exactitude in prosecution may have to suffer, for the sake of psychologically valid benefits of a quick response. Tactically, though, the time of response should not be predictable to possible adversaries. Wear 'em down with some worry of "their" own, going to the toilet in "their" own gas masks and civil defense helmets. (-.

Demands for precision may have to defer some, to immediate necessity?