Yeah, I guess the creator of the famous Dilbert cartoon knows about as much about this as anyone else – only he tells it in a much funnier way:
“Itâ€™s a strange little war in the sense that neither side can win, and they both know it. Hizbollah canâ€™t destroy Israel and Israel canâ€™t destroy Hizbollah. And neither side can afford to give up. So in the meantime, since no one can win or lose, they settle for killing as many random civilians as possible because thatâ€™s one thing they can do. The thinking, I gather, is that killing random people and never winning is still better than doing nothing and looking weak. I see this as part of a trend. The U.S. couldnâ€™t kill Osama, so we whacked Saddam instead. Maybe all future wars will be fought by killing whoever does the worst job of hiding and also kind of sucks. That way you appear tough in the eyes of the world. And letâ€™s face it â€“ thatâ€™s the whole point. If you canâ€™t defeat your actual enemy, at least kick the crap out of some a-hole that desperately deserves it. Itâ€™s better than doing nothing.”
You’ll have to read the full article to see the solution he comes up with. It’s at least as good as all the others that have been presented over the last few weeks.