Exactly
Of course they're not going to engage the US Military directly. *That* would be suicide. But they want to destroy the symbols of American economic and military might. And they did.
This clearly points out the stupidity of Bush's new missile defense policy BTW. Modern cruise missiles fly at regularly scheduled intervals, come with passengers, and can be had by anyone with a knife and some nerve. Bush's plan doesn't target those kind of cruise missiles though.
Oddly enough, the fool has possibly done us a favor. Nothing cures a recession like a wartime economy and a people focused on a common cause. Left to our own devices we might have languished and fallen like Rome. Now, there's a surge of adrenaline, and a new clarity of purpose.
On the military vs civilian targets thing: I am unaware of the military significance of either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Those cities were selected based on size to showcase our new weapon. While I clearly support the use of nukes in that circumstance (the bombings actually saved lives that would have been lost in a conventional invasion), we are not squeaky clean wrt only hitting "military" targets.
Little [link|http://www.sherpaguides.com/georgia/civil_war/sidebars/sherman.html|piece of history]:
Union Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's "March to the Sea" is one of the most famous events in the annals of war. Much has been written about his Savannah Campaign, some acclaiming his brilliant military strategy, others denouncing his ruthless tactics. Sherman wanted to bring the war home to Georgians in harsh terms, proving that the Confederacy couldn't protect its citizens. He also thought that pressure on the home front might lead to desertions on the front lines of the Confederacy, as soldiers learned that their loved ones and property were threatened. Sherman's treatment of defenseless civilians and their private property is legendary, and his "March to the Sea" is frequently described as a "60-mile wide path of utter destruction" in history books, which is somewhat exaggerated if one has seen the beautiful antebellum homes in Madison, Covington, Milledgeville, and other towns on the route. Popularized in song and verse, an abundance of material exists on the March, written mostly from the Northern point of view. Northerners believe it was bold and effective stroke against the Southern foe; Southerners believed his destruction of private property was unnecessary and cruel; and that the March was successful only due to a lack of organized opposition. For Sherman \ufffd the man who said, "War is all Hell" \ufffd his style of warfare was a military issue, not a moral one: "This may seem a hard species of warfare, but it brings the sad realities of war home to those who have been directly or indirectly instrumental in involving us in its attendant calamities," he said. For Sherman it was a type of rear attack, not on the army of the enemy but the people of the enemy.
Why are we surprised at the use of similar tactics from others?
