Collateral Damage, Political and Physical

The recent missle strikes in Pakistan have set off a storm of protest. There are several issues at work here. First, the US needs Pakistan to become a partner in the "global conflict with terrorism." This seems far off to begin with, except maybe for during the Cold War? After the recent incident it is less likely. The Washington Post reports that opposition groups have protested together against the US. Any support from them seems to either be superficial or inconsistent. Secondly and related to the first issue is that the Afghan-Pakistan border is mountainous and vaporous. Pakistan's enforcement there appears to be largely superficial. This is probably where we lost al Qaeda as the West launched a traditional Western war in the country. In the thrid place, this "global conflict with terrorism" is not an epic Western-type of battle. It is itself vaporous. The October/November Foreign Affairs has an article advocating an "oil-spot" strategy in Iraq. In the strategy the Coalition Forces tackle insurgency piecemeal as opposed to the present search for a pitched battle and annhiliation of the enemy. The author admits it is problematic. Americans seem to be unwilling to invest life. Perhaps it is the video game mentality? What I mean by that is that I've recently been playinga World War II shooter video game. In it your player is able to dispatch multiple enemy without dying. It is unrealistic. I am advocating an acceptance of more military casualities as a consequence of this war. The statement is difficult to profess and even more troubling to type. Vietnam statistics are touted as a comparable standard. This new American penchant is reflected here. The recent bombing involved unmanned aircraft nad highlights our reluctance to face danger. Perhaps technology will never really replace "boots on the ground" in military conflict. Could the collateral damage to civilians have been reduced or eliminated if we had soldiers performing such a surgical attack?