"But then, Hezbollah is not a conventional enemy." -- some person recently.
Is there not a pattern emerging where none of the new "enemies" are "conventional enemies."
Does this not mean that the "unconventional enemy" is now becoming the new "conventional enemy"? And adjustments must be made to this new reality?
Take off the blinders for a minute and consider the possibility there is not a conspiracy. That World War III, IV or VII or whatever you might call it is not now underway, about to begin or germinating in the ground as we speak.
Consider the possibility that Arab states have enacted a de facto Monroe Doctrine which tells western nations to keep their hands off the territories of the Arab speaking world.
Consider the possibility that Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan are not engaged in an epochal effort to enslave and indoctrinate the entire world under the edict of Islam, but are instead most interested in defending certain parcels of territory from encroachment by others.
Consider the possibility that 9/11 was not the tip of the iceberg of a Reich-like millennial struggle for global supremacy but was the work of a small group of homicidal, fanatical, demented nut jobs whose influence and power peaked at 9/11 and has been on the wane ever since.
Consider the possibility that the cell which unhatched 9/11 might have been the equivalent of several hundred Timothy McVeighs -- no more and no less.
Consider the possibility that the apocalyptic screeds in Revelation might have been written by a Samuel Taylor Coleridge of 75 A.D. hopped up on some desert hallucinogen and added to the Bible to give it some spice after all of Jesus' un-Vince Lombardi-like admonitions to turn the other cheek and accept the thorned helmet with grace and aplomb.
Or, take a step back, count to the cubic root of i, take a breather, and check out the Sunday morning service at the Unitarian Church in your home town. You might meet a guy named Don. He seems like a nice guy.