“Kinetic military action” is really just another way to say war, while sounding scientific/PC, just, and non-aggressive. But at the end of the day a bomb dropping onto your village still cuts through skin, kills, dismembers, and turns the clock back as rebuilding must start again – Whether or not said bomb or bullet is administered from a live soldier or not: A very cute way to impose military rule over a country.
I think this kind of talk and action is the beginning of a new way to fight wars, as the technology has probably been available for some time. Maybe it was all about waiting for the right president to articulate this kind of message? Imagine George W. trying to explain kinetic military action?
For instance, consider the kinetic training that happens within the youth culture. (And also consider the supreme court recently claiming that all video gaming is just another harmless form of “art”) You raise kids on a form of remote warfare by producing X number of 1st person shooter games for Xbox, playstation, etc. (call of duty and other warlike themed games) and get them into this remote mode of thinking, where actual kill counts become quite addictive, and hey it’s over the internet so this kind of mentality can pervade the whole world all at once.
So there’s this general detachment to your actions, compared to all the previous wars with hand to hand combat – where the individual’s conscious mind was much more at rsik for being permenantely altered or damaged. Then when these gamers are of military age, there’s the infastructure in new mexico and california to put all of those gaming hours to real practical use, as a few buttons and coordinates are calculated and libyan forces are intimidated at once.
My understanding of “kinetic military action” is that it’s a kind of warfare that doesn’t involve boots on the ground, that it’s by air, with the use of unmaned drones, which cuts down on casualties and presents the american public a much cleaner/orwellian form of war.