>There are always people, especially if you talk about 'few survivors' who would like to kill you just for fun, or some other reason that's doesn't merit 'why' question.
>
>There is no defence against them, except to remove the incentive for any population to harbor them.

The purpose of war is to achieve military victory, not a defence against fringe. Military victory besides other things may significantly reduce terrorist danger and it's good enough.

>
>By the way, I disagree that military ways are obsolete. Iraq situation (i believe that would be your example) is not a military fault. It is an illustration what happens when army (after winning the war) is invited to perform police (or any other non-related) functions.
>
>I didn't say military ways, I said big guns and big batallions as a recipe for "victory". I agree there is an important role for military along the lines of Roosevelt's "speak softly and carry a big stick". But things have changed and "armies" don't line up with rifles for a slugfest anymore. They seek jobs in airports, hospitals, morgues and wait for the perfect moment.

Iraq war (military part) was a good demonstration that tanks and airplanes work.