I see an important ethical distinction between advocating aggressive illegal violence (the Interhamwe) and advocating forceful methods against enemies. To the best of my knowledge (and someone correct me if I'm wrong), Ralph's argument has been that we are in a state of war but have imposed restraints on ourselves that states do not normally impose when in a state of war. Now, I personally disagree with that. In the monograph I'm working on now, I argue that "war" is not the appropriate response to the threat we face. But IF one buys the notion that we are at war, I think Ralph's position is at least reasonable.
Steve

I would say that is a question of how you define the enemy and how you see the conflict. I see it as a conflict that requires much less force and a broader spectrum of tools. I also see the enemy as a smaller and inherently dangerous foe not given to negotiation. A mailed fist is the wrong tool, one likely to spread the conflict.

Tom