There is something unusual in the argument that somehow we of the West and to a greater extent we Americans are more virtuous because we do not use brutality toward achieving our objectives even when faced with extreme brutality by the opponent. You can commit any heinous act against us yet we are so enlightened that we have no need to retaliate and certainly not by using your base methods. There is something shockingly naïve about this, perhaps a syndrome of ivory towers or a consequence of religion or quite possibly just a denial of reality. Why are you better for allowing yourself and your brethren to be victims, why is inaction or restrained action that can never wholly achieve any end the more prudent course?

This ceaseless debate over what actions we have taken, mistakes that have been made and comparisons to history display our unwillingness to do what is necessary to secure our existence. There are things that happen that are not pretty and there are things that are necessary that must be done. Enlightenment does not stay the hand of violence. Waves of action can quickly surpass a society locked in debate and everything can be swept away. There is too much power in the hands of thinkers who are the consummate losers and who, if left to them, would leave nothing to show if for no other reason then their inability to act. The warrior acts and does not fear the consequences, the coward freezes with consideration of the consequences of defeat. The warrior creates and maintains societies, the coward only makes it harder for the warrior to do his work.