Opposed Systems Design

This click-baiting headline from Michael Hayden's CNN interview sparked a hilarious twitter thread. Dan Byman chimed in to credit Eliot Cohen with coming up with the line.

The punchline - both airstrikes and casual sex seem like gratification without commitment - doesn't live up to the titillating lead-in. As a rhetorical device, the simile does a poor job of making a serious point about the use of military power. When deciding to use force, national leaders should not gravitate to the comparatively easy tool of airstrikes before they've thought through how the application of force will help them achieve the nation's goals. That's an important point. Does the simile help convey it? No. Furthermore, by muddying the water with this bawdy simile opens the speaker up to any number of snappy comebacks that obscure rather than illuminate the issue:

• Given the pop sociology hand-wringing about the popularity of casual sex among millennials, the simile has a high risk of backfiring. "Airstrikes are like causal sex? Awesome! I was looking for a way to fit military action into my busy schedule."
• A quick SECDEF order that all pilots wear their Class A uniforms during airstrikes could clear up the concern about the airstrikes being "casual."
• It opens the speaker up to the question: "Wait, I know you're a national security expert, but how much experience do you have with casual sex?"
• "Oh, I thought you were going to say 'they are both phases a person goes through during college.'"
• "But my parents met during an airstrike!"
• "You're right, airstrikes should only be used between two countries in a long-term, committed relationship."

Thus ends today's gripe session.