Peace Through Superior Firepower

Yesterday the French commander of U.N. forces in Lebanon announced that U.N. troops will not disarm Hezbollah.

While considering the merits of this fact could produce a post alone, I believe that there is another discussion in a point made by French Defense Minister, Michele Alliot-Marie,

“To avoid clashes sometimes you have to dissuade (the other side) by demonstrating you are stronger”

I will go on record and say that I suscribe to this viewpoint, and I believe the U.S. would be better served had we taken this viewpoint in Iraq.

That being said, even with opinions I hold, "truth" is still relative.

It is has been traditionally the case that putting "butter" over "guns" is considered more of a long-term approach vs. the converse which has been considered a shorter-term approach. Has the War on Terror changed this? Has this been a fallacy all along? Is that belief, indeed, accurate? If situational specifics matter, what factors should governments take into account when deciding? How should they go about making such decisions? What percentage of "guns vs. butter" would you use for the following "hotspots": Iraq? Iran? North Korea? Thinking about the use of "guns and butter" not related to nuclear proliferation nor the Waron Terror, what percentage of "guns vs. butter" would you dedicate to places like Columbia?