Bravo Delta says "Some folks have taken the red pill and now see the world as one gripped in a titanic struggle between classic western values, such as liberalism and rational scientific enquiry and 7th century mideval tribalism, while others have taken the blue pill, and see no such war."

Conservatives think that liberals are oblivious to the problem of terrorism. We aren't. We see it as a "titanic struggle," just like Bravo Delta does. Where we differ is in the assumption that every titanic struggle must be treated as a shooting war. In other words, the difference between us isn't a question of "conservatives perceive the existence of a titanic struggle, liberals don't." That's simply an inaccurate characterization. The accurate way to characterize our differences is that conservatives see it as a problem that can be solved with tanks and bombs, liberals think it requires other strategies.

Why do I think that tanks and bombs are useless? Because islamic fundamentalism is a cultural disease similar to racism. Imagine if seventy years ago, some hypothetical foreign leader had noticed the problem of racism in the US, and that this racism periodically resulted in acts of terror such as arson. Furthermore, he might have noticed that there was some state sponsorship of racism: Jim Crow laws, and a court system that frequently allowed aggressors against blacks to go scot-free. Imagine if this foreign leader had decided to invade us to solve the problem. Imagine, further, that this foreign leader is from a predominantly-black nation. How much good could he have done? Not much, I think: no matter how powerful his troops, it seems unlikely that he would be unable to stamp out racism. Heck, it's taken us a hundred years to mostly-eliminate racism. To expect that a military could change an attitude that persistent by shooting a few KKK leaders doesn't make sense. The mere presence of an occupying army of mostly-black people would have an aggravating effect that would work against all of their efforts. Even if the occupiers try to build a government that contains laws against racism, I doubt it would have much effect: laws that are not widely accepted by the people as a whole don't get enforced.

Josh, nobody thinks that tanks and bombs are going to solve everything. But they're often necissary for getting massive roadblocks out of the way, i.e. dictators.

This may not come out sounding right, but the fact of the matter is, those names are very hard for me to remember. To me, they sound like gibberish. That's not a slam, it's just that they sound so unlike our language.

The thorny issue for the police action set is that many of the terrorists backers are states, and that we cannot compete with that state's control of the local media and win over the population. So long as the Saudis, Syrans, Egyptians and Iranians use terrorists as proxy fighers for their own ends we will be unable to stop terrorism from occuring. We have to eliminate the state funding and support, and make thoses states hostile to the terrorists. Saddam, like Iran and NK, will never be convinced to work with the US no matter what concessions are made, and with Europe paralyzed by bribes the only option left was to invade.

I have to agree with Susan. I am prone to confuse Mohammed Atef with Mohammed Atta, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi with Ayman al-Zawahiri. Pile on top of that the Islamic habit of taking nom de guerres - Abu this, Abu that, Abu whatever - and the endless variant spellings, and I'm totally at sea.

Actually, I think Josh's hypothetical is more representative of our involvement in the Balkans than of Iraq. As relatively tidy as it turned out to be to achieve regime change in Serbia by bludgeoning Belgrade, I've always found it ethically questionable, and it certainly didn't address the root causes of ethinic unrest in the Balkans.

If the "problem of racism" had resulted in terrorism against foreign countries, and the federal government had done nothing to address it. I think it would have been entirely understandable if those countries had intervened militarily against the US. Taking Josh's metaphor at a somewhat different level, I think things actually played out kind of similarly: Northern, non-Jim Crow states saw the atrocities and oppression that were more-or-less a way of life in the south, and intervened legally to crush the legal structure that allowed those abuses to thrive. Having Federal troops escort black children to integrated schools didn't make racism go away overnight, but it was part of a strategy of "first aid" to alleviate the suffering of the southern black underclass, and did make clear that governmentally sanctioned and sponsored racism would not be tolerated.

In a seperate thought, I concur with Susan. I would ask Dan Darling if his grandfather could name the senior leadership of Japan. I think that Tojo (who was actually forced out of power before the end of the war) and Admiral Yamamoto (not a political leader, but a top military commander and planner of Pearl Harbor) were about the only Japanese household names. I think civilian recognition of the Nazi heirarchy was due to their maintaining a higher public profile, and having somewhat more pronouncable names than their Japanese counterparts (call it racism if you like, I think "foreignness" is a less inflamatory and more accurate descriptor). I suspect that the same factors give the terrorist leadership their generic status.

Josh Yelon:

Conservatives think that liberals are oblivious to the problem of terrorism. We aren't. We see it as a "titanic struggle," just like Bravo Delta does. Where we differ is in the assumption that every titanic struggle must be treated as a shooting war. In other words, the difference between us isn't a question of "conservatives perceive the existence of a titanic struggle, liberals don't." That's simply an inaccurate characterization. The accurate way to characterize our differences is that conservatives see it as a problem that can be solved with tanks and bombs, liberals think it requires other strategies.

I'm neither conservative nor liberal. I'm what might be called a radical moderate. I'd agree with your conclusions about the War on Terror except for one thing. We just don't have the time. The attitudinal change you're talking about can only take place over decades or centuries if ever.

It's 140 years since the end of the Civil War, 108 years since Plessy v. Ferguson, and 50 years since Brown v. Board of Education. Quite a bit of progress has been made. Has the U. S. turned into a color-blind Utopia? I've been listening to a lot of African American leaders over the last few weeks saying "No".

With another 140 years of violent radical fundamentalist Islamic terrorism it's inevitable that a nuclear device will be used against an American city. We will retaliate. It doesn't make any difference who the president is. We will retaliate. Against Tehran. Against Pyong-Yang. Maybe against Paris if the French are dumb enough to sell nuclear weapons to Middle Eastern countries as some of their politicians have suggested.

I believe it won't take 140 years. Probably more like 5. Maybe less. It's why I'm skeptical about the war in Iraq as well. We just don't have the time.

So, Josh, when you plead for a hundred year solution it absolutely, positively means you have reconciled yourself to hundreds of thousands or millions of deaths. Is that your preferred solution?

Imagine that around 60 years ago a cultural disease called Nazism developed in Germany. Not only did this disease lead German society to abuse many of it's own citizens, but under it's influence the German's began to threaten their neighbors and to actually attack several of them. Imagine that.

Also, imagine, how this society was transformed into a liberal democracy through the crucible of war and defeat. Can you possible image that? That couldn't really have happened. Could it?

I agree with Dave in response to Josh's ideas. One thing that we here in the US have up our sleeve in this whole affair is the "Shiva Option", but any sane American wants to avoid using it if necessary. Those who think that non-military is the way to go are assuring that some US President is going to have to resort to that option in the near future.

As to the French giving nukes to the Arabs, that discussion was IIRC pre 9/11. They are now the EU country most active in deporting incendiary mullahs.

I agree with Susan. The rules and structure of some names are so unfamiliar to me I fail to "slot" them properly in memory.

But in WW-II, the folks were able to construct terribly "incorrect" popular songs as mnenomics.

"... Goering's, are rather awfully small,
Himmler's, are rather sim'lar,
and Goebels, has no balls, at all..."

Seems to me modern Americans might benefit from similar satiric versification. And it would help if said verse could be whistled, jauntily.

As a former liberal, I have to say that liberals truly do not comprehend the magnitude of the struggle here.
We know we are doing something right if the war never seems to end. If the war ends in our lifetimes, we will have lost. Look in the mirror and see a dhimmi.
It will certainly last hundreds of years, no matter how well the war is fought.

I agree with those who've commented that part of the "knowing names" problem is that we're just not comfortable with non-Western European names. How many of us knew the names of leaders in the USSR? Or China?

Extensive use of pseudonyms is another problem. When so many major figures seem to have half a dozen different names it's discouraging.

And, of course, a lot of us just don't care.

Josh,

I think that the hawkish folks don't see the sole solution as being force of arms, but rather a very important component of a complete portfolio of options.

The problem that I have with dovish approaches is that they tend to either dismiss force out of hand or severly hobble it in its employment. The Kosovo war was a case in point - the fact that ground forces were explicitly and visible ruled out from the beginning greatly emboldened the regime and allowed them to hang on far longer than would have been possible otherwise.

In particular, once force is taken off the table, one's ability to coerce, compell, or deter an opponent is based solely on the gulibility of an opponent and their willingness to believe a bluff. And once that bluff is called and the threats found hollow, it takes an awfully large amount of blood letting to regain that credibility.

In fact, a large portion of the Islamist violence we see now is due to that very same loss of credibility. We now are involved in the process of regaining it, and we have to pay that price in blood, treasure, and sweat.

Dave: I agree with you that the situation is desperate. But wishing for a fast solution doesn't make it so that you have one. Invading Iraq certainly is fast, but that doesn't make it effective.

Look, I wish I had a solution that could eliminate racism in 5 years. I just don't think that one exists, cultural diseases just don't go away that fast. If you're really right, that we have to solve the problem in 5 years, then maybe we're doomed. There ain't no magic wand here.

> once force is taken off the table

The thing is, there are lots of liberals who would support the use of force if it were applied with subtlety and precision. True, not all. There is a pacifist fringe in the country who won't support any sort of military action, period. But there are liberals who can be convinced of the need for force. Two cases in point:

• 93% of Americans supported the Afghan war. In the presence of a clear need, you can get overwhelming support for the use of force from liberals.

• Al Franken, our talk radio spokesperson, supported both wars. He no longer supports the Iraq war... I think. Actually, he mostly seems to be against the ham-handedness with which we're prosecuting it.

Admittedly, the latter is mere anecdotal evidence, but the former is statistically valid. To paint liberals as a bunch of pacifists is to make a strawman argument that's simply not accurate. Likewise, to talk about "red pills" and "blue pills" is equally a strawman argument, it's just plain false.

But the key thing about force is that it has to be applied with accuracy, a clear sense of purpose, and competence. I never had that feeling about Bush. The lead-up to war seemed hasty - frantic, even. Blix was on TV saying that there were no WMDs, and Bush was saying there were, so it was clear that there was an intelligence problem somewhere. Bush's rhetoric seemed hot-headed and judgemental, not calm and focused. I also believe that you shouldn't strike when you're angry, and to me, the nation seemed angry. I just couldn't support force under those circumstances. I'm a big believer in the martial arts dictum that you have to be "centered" before you use force, otherwise, it turns out bad.

Actually I believe Bush was saying that the WMDs were unaccounted for, and we couldn't rely on Saddam's honesty given his track record of non-cooperation.

all attempts to divide every one up into two groups necessarily tend to be wrong.

1. There are liberals (or even radicals) like Paul Berman and Christopher Hitchens who have strongly supported the war in Iraq, and the goal of democratizing the Mideast starting in Iraq.

2. There are other liberals who favored overthrowing Saddam, but were reluctant to have Bush do it, and have focused on Bushes alleged incompetence.

3. There are liberals who opposed the overthrow of Saddam, but who supported action in Afghanistan.

4. And there are some liberals/radicals/lefties who opposed the intervention in Afghanistan, and thought that even that intervention was a militarization of what should have been purely a "law enforcement" operation.

5. And of course there are lefties who never saw it as a law enforcement problem at all - rather they saw 9/11 as justified, by US policy in Israel and elsewhere.

And these categories tend to bleed into each other. Plenty of those in category number 4 share anti-Israel and anti-US rhetoric with those in number 5. Plenty of those in nominally in category 3 were quick to criticize many necessary steps in Afghanistan. Plenty of those in category two, would like to make it sound like they were against invading Iraq in general. And folks like Paul Berman, and even more so Richard Holbrooke, who supported OIF NOW, are quick to distance themselves from many policy choices of the Bushies.

So its simply not accurate to say "liberals think X"

BTW, al franken isnt my spokesperson.

BTW, al franken isnt my spokesperson.

Josh Yelon, in the initial comment, does a reasonable job of articulating a defensible less-hawkish position which is, at the same time, not based on rejecting the idea of this being a "titanic struggle". And indeed, perhaps his is a reasonably accurate characterization of the (effectively) anti-war side of all these debates.

The only thing I can't figure out is why he thinks his is the "liberal" position, and the one he's arguing with is the "conservative" one, rather than the other way around.

For starters, I'm not interested in dividing folks into two camps, but rather point out "hawkish" and "dovish" as two ends of a philosophical spectrum.

Past that, Josh states "But the key thing about force is that it has to be applied with accuracy, a clear sense of purpose, and competence."

I don't really believe that this says what you might think it says.

By this standard, WWII doesn't meet the grade, as it involved the use of extraordinarily inaccurate use of force, and occasionally lack of purpose (think Dresden here). In the Pacific theater, MacArthur did a pretty lousy job from time to time. In Europe, Montgomery was no great shakes either.

Conversely, the Korean War did not meet these goals either, as for long streched, the war was fought in a very incompetent manner (immediately prior to Ridgeway).

Any by any measure WWI definitely fails in all three categories.

What examples of the use of force do you see as meeting these criteria?

I assume (and I could be wrong here) that you do not find any of the three principle reasons given to be sufficient to merit the use of force.

As far as deterrence and compellance go, had we not invaded Iraq, where do you think we would be with Libya, Iran, and Pakistan on their nuclear programs? Libya certainly wouldn't have come to light. The NCRI (National Council for Resistance in Iran) probably wouldn't have dropped the dime on Iran's violation of the NPT had the US not been making such bellicose noises about WMD? Most certainly Iraq would still be pursuing their programs, especially if we had backed down after the passage of 1441. Moreover, given the increasingly likelyhood that sanctions would be lifted, we would have a terrible problem on our hands rather soon.

Condisering the point about the public not being aware of the names of our enemy, I presume that the point of this is that we aren't informed on the progress, or lack thereof, of the WoT. I think this is a valid point.

One could take this discussion in the direction of blaming the media for failing to frame and focus the issue, but I don't want to go there, as the media has its own motivations and is not responsible for communicating information in any particular way.

One could take Bush et al to task and say they haven't communicated things well enough, but I don't believe that is entirely true, but I don't want to pursue this angle either.

What I do want to point out, is that there is one amazingly effecive PR technique; namely the famed "deck of cards" in Iraq. I do not know more than 5 names in the Iraq dictatorship, but I can recall roughly the number of bad guys reported apprehended, and I can instantly grasp the significance when the Ace of Diamonds is capture/killed. I think that we need an equilavent metaphor for WOT.

> What examples of the use of force do you see as meeting these criteria?

I'm not a sufficiently skilled student of history to know. But I believe you fully when you say that we did some incompetent things in those wars. When I said we should not use force unless we can do so with accuracy, competence, and purpose, I didn't mean it as an absolute. I just meant that those are important factors you should take into account when you make predictions about the success or failure of a war. I think that liberals predicted a bad outcome from the war in Iraq, conservatives predicted a good outcome.

Bear in mind, I was never trying to convince you that the war was a bad idea. Here's what I was trying to convince you of:

• That there exists two reasons to oppose the war: Chomsky's reason, and my reason.
• That only 7% of the population subscribes to Chomsky's reason, and the rest of the anti-war folks subscribe to mine or something like mine.
• That when you talk about red pills and blue pills, you're taking on the Chomskyites, but you're not speaking to the other group - the group that can be convinced.

In that way, I think you're harming your own cause when you talk about red pills and blue pills.

Josh,

I'm glad you clearly delineated your points, because sadly the Chomsky-followers are the ones who quite often attract disproportionate attention and, evidently, suck the air out of the room. I take your point about the use of force which, if I may take the liberty, might rephrase something like "If you're going to use force, don't be a freaking moron about it."

I would whole-heartedly agree with that formation. Reasonable people can, and do, disagree whether or not the use of force in Iraq has been moronic or not. But that would be a long post.

One thing that I do want to mention in passing, at least, about the purple (red/blue) pill thing, is that the original post asserts that it possible (and I believe reasonable) to view the WoT as an Out of Context problem, by which I mean that the problem of Islamist terrorism could not be genuinely or realistically understood on a visceral level without the 9/11 experience, and thus 9/11 was bound to happen because, given what we know now, those folks will keep on trying no matter how many times the are foiled. So eventually, they would have pulled a 9/11 of some variety off, even if this one had failed.

The other minor point I wanted to bring out is the statement "But (without prejudice to either side), human self-delusion is sufficiently powerful that there may just not be a way to objectively prove anything on this whole pill issue at all." By this I had intended to indicate that it is also possible that I could be horribly wrong about the whole situation and you (or Chomsky for that matter) could be right. We don't really have a good way to settle that kind of dispute.

But, moving back to original point, it now appears that the dovish (I really don't like ascribing either dovishness or hawkishness in this case to either left or right, because, essentially, lumping this together with other left/right disputes isn't fair or helpful) folks were pretty uniformly wrong about the War itself, but not that far off the mark, by and large, about D-Day +8 months. The hawkish sorts were right, by and large, about the war itself, and fell a bit short on some elements of the post-war period.

The two classes of questions I see from here are:

1) Are we still capable of making this turn out well?

2) To what extent does the motivation for war still matter?

Of course, there are other questions, but these are two that have been marching through my head most recently, so...

Josh,

I think your comments are well-meaning, but I'm still not convinced that the left has offered a coherent analysis of the new struggle in which the West finds itself. It's not like there aren't intelligent people among leftist academics, but they are using ossified marxist or pseudo-marxist systems to analyze the problem.

So, even from non-Chomskyite leftists we are told that it is the socio-economic condition of the ME or the effect of capitalist imperialist policies on oppressed societies that have resulted in terrorism. For the many reasons we've been through before (eg: wealthy, oil-funded religious terrorists espousing an anti-democratic feudal theocracy, fighting a proxy war for Arab dictators desperate to hold onto power), these explanations are unsatisfactory. Modern terrorism just isn't amenable to marxist analysis. So giving brutal ME dictators more Western aid or engaging in rigorous "end racism now" campaigns are not viable solutions to avert potential nuclear attacks by jihadists; any government that adopts these anti-terrorist measures might as well bomb its own citizens and be done with it. (Add in "ignore the problem", and you have Canada's approach to terrorism; I predict a terrorist attack on Canadian soil within 2 years.)

The entire theory is flawed: Islamic fundamentalists desire the destruction or enslavement of the West, not our reformation; short of this, no amount of change on our part will make any difference.

IMO, this is why the left has so few useful policies to offer. Leftists theories of terrorism have little predictive or explanatory power; unless and until the left rids itself of its antique reasoning, it will continue to be irrelevant to modern problems.

I don't think liberals believe terrorism is not a problem. I think they say the right things in terms of "going after" the terrorists.

2 problems though:

1.) I don't believe they understand what is necessary to fight the war. Some have even said this is inevitable and we should just deal with it. Terrorism is inevitable, this particular brand isn't - at least on it's current scale. It does have to be dealt with.

2.) The priority is not there. Some liberals might even agree witht the current approach, but I feel 90% certain that a President Kerry will put domestic issues ahead of terrorism. The choice as I see it, is between a President who will handle it imperfectly, and one who would probably rather not talk about it.

Precise use of force is an oxymoron that should be taken from the lexicon of pacifists everywhere. What it sets up is this utopian fallacy that if they just didn't make a hash of it, well I would have supported it, but x, that happened and its obvious that anyone should have predicted X. yada yada yada. Which is my real main point, exactly how has Bush and his team f***D this up so badly. The fact that terrorists are still taking potshots and Iraq did not turn into the garden of eden once the boot of Saddam was released. Christ talk about high standard. From what I have seen and read, the Iraqis were glad that we showed up (wish we had done it 10 years go but stability is impt), since Iraq seems to have more AK47s per capita than anyone else, the lack of shooting at American troops seems to be grudging acceptance of us being there. We have not leveled a city for the fun of it, or to make an example of it. We paraded a bunch of terrorists around with women's underwear. Boo Hoo. We are one year and change since the end of the quagmire (what 3 weeks) and things are progressing. Local elections are being held in some towns, foriegn fighters and local agitators are being neutralized by a combination of bullets and talk, with the help of the great middle of Iraq. Our Allies won't help us - again a big who cares as our Allies were getting bribed not to start this in the first place. Same with UN. That the occupation is not perfect, therefore ham handed is a high standard, certainly not one ever used before (we are still in Bosnia and Kosovo and they are no closer to self rule 7 years later). So spare me the river of Cowboy, bull in china shop, craptacular that spews from Kerry's mouth that some how with just the right soft soap from President Kerry, European realities and fantasies will reverse themselves and they are willing to pitch in and help transform the ME from terrorist birthplace to a reasonable member of the world community with a little more talk and a little more feel their pain crap. We are at war, you win wars by killing people who wish to kill you and keep killing them until they change thier mind.

>>I take your point about the use of force which, if I may take the liberty, might rephrase something like "If you're going to use force, don't be a freaking moron about it."

For sure. It should also be reiterated that there exists a range of stupidity and a continuum of "the war is worth it." Regardless of other factors, US citizens should be attempting to make the actions of their government less stupid and any ongoing interventions more worth it.

This is why arguments like "the Iraq war is/isn't worth it because less/more people are being killed now than under Hussein" aren't as important as they might seem to some.

The important thing is that current US actions are leading to a body count of X/yr. The important question is, what can be done to make this number lower? It should be emphasized that I'm talking about TOTAL body count. If we adjust our prosecution of the Iraq war so that 1000 fewer Iraqis die, but as a result NYC gets nuked, this is clearly inefficient.

>>Precise use of force is an oxymoron that should be taken from the lexicon of pacifists everywhere.

I'm curious what people think would have happened had Mossad assassinated Hussein (with full plausible deniablity, of course) in late 2001? Would this have led to a better outcome?

This is not just a hindsight issue. Maybe assassinating NK's Dear Leader or some of the crazier Mullahs in Iran might be an efficient use of force, and might save lives. It would definitely be cheaper than an invasion of these places.

>>We are at war, you win wars by killing people who wish to kill you and keep killing them until they change thier mind.

What if it's possible/more efficient to change their mind without killing them? More likely, what if it's possible to convince the neighbors of the killers to rat them out, thus making killing them easier? What if the enemy can be neutralized and rendered impotent without killing them? What if most of the people trying to kill you have been paid or coerced into doing so (mercenaries/conscripts)? In this case bribing or liberating may be smarter than killing.

"Therefore, in chariot fighting when more than ten chariots are captured, reward those who take the first. Replace the enemy's flags and banners with you own, mix the captured chariots with yours, and mount them. Treat the prisoners of war well, and care for them. This is called 'winning a battle and becoming stronger.'"

Josh says:

"there are lots of liberals who would support the use of force if it were applied with subtlety and precision."

Me too.

Smash Syria. Smash Iran. Squeeze Saudis Balls.

How is that for subtlety and precision?

We need to raise the tempo.

I'm with you, Kevin, the women's underwear seems goofy but no real problem. You kinda lost me on the gang rapes, though. And the 37 deaths. Guess that shows I wasn't in a frat. You also, Kevin, might want to check up on the relatively small number of successful counter-insurgencies (e.g., the Brits in Malaya), 'cause they didn't follow your formula. You've described Chechnya pretty well, though—how is it the Russians aren't winning yet?

T.J.

As per our previous discussion on this, I think there may be two objections to targetted assassination of Politicians We Don't Like worth considering:

1) The US government isn't (historically) particularly competent in this sphere. The baker's dozen or so attempts by the CIA to kill Castro come to mind. Comparatively, I'd expect the North Korean intel crew to be much more effective at this (e.g., their assassination of most of the senior South Korean cabinet ministers in Burma back in '83).

2) The likely countermeasures by any State's elite to a world where political assassination is more common (increased surveillance, a stronger domestic intelligence commitment, more vigorous policing, etc.) don't really do much to advance the cause of liberty. Now, you might counter that for hellish dystopian police states like North Korea or Saddam's Iraq, the absence of liberty is/was about as bad as it can get, but asassination is a two edged sword, and we have far more liberties (and decent politicians) to lose than they do.

So as a matter of policy, this approach may put the US at a strategic disadvantage. Targetted Asassination of despots might still be more cost effective in human lives (and overall liberty) than war to depose them, but there may be some unintended consequences here. Just my two cents.

"The lead-up to war seemed hasty - frantic, even. Blix was on TV saying that there were no WMDs, and Bush was saying there were, so it was clear that there was an intelligence problem somewhere."

The leadup to war took over a year, and involved 2 trips to the UN. I think the long leadup served the purpose of getting a massive amount of men and materiel to the site, but a lot of us were biting our fingernails and muttering "faster, please."

The WMD issue was resolved to my satisfaction by the Kay Report. It describes an abundance of labs and precursor materials. Saddam could restart a JIT WMD manufacturing initiative any time he wanted. Meanwhile various terrorist groups were wandering in and out of Iraq. There is some evidence Saddam was involved with the '93 WTC bomb. he met with Al Queda and friends, he encouraged Palestinian suicide bombers, he threw SCUDs at Israel.

Bush is reported to have said "I don't want to just keep swatting at flies." That's why I'm voting for Bush.

"I'm curious what people think would have happened had Mossad assassinated Hussein (with full plausible deniablity, of course) in late 2001? Would this have led to a better outcome?"

Uday. Qusay. Then the next 10 Baathist generals in line. Then Iran takes over. No, the whole structure had to be taken apart.

Also, we know the Mossad is good, but they aren't the Justice League of America. You can't just assume the Mossad is a magic bandaid alternative to a real, messy war.

"what if it's possible to convince the neighbors of the killers to rat them out, thus making killing them easier? What if the enemy can be neutralized and rendered impotent without killing them? What if most of the people trying to kill you have been paid or coerced into doing so (mercenaries/conscripts)? In this case bribing or liberating may be smarter than killing."

Oh, we're doing all that too. we haven't invaded Pakistan or China.

>>Also, we know the Mossad is good, but they aren't the Justice League of America. You can't just assume the Mossad is a magic bandaid alternative to a real, messy war.

No, but they might have been/could be in the future worth at least trying out. If it doesn't pan out, then the war machine could be brought out later. It just seems that One Billion Dollars should buy a lot of assassinations, while one invasion seems to cost 200 billion dollars. Maybe the invasion generates more liberty, but more liberty per dollar? Hard to see.

>>Oh, we're doing all that too. we haven't invaded Pakistan or China.

Let us hope so.

I'm wonder if we're not doing much better at fighting Islamofascism than we think: Bush and his oil cronies are known to have strong ties to the corrupt Saudi princes. Maybe this relationship has been used to really cut down on the funding for the madrassas, etc., and we just aren't hearing much about it. Is there any way to know what's going on with that front?

The next big thugs in the terror story are going to be pakistan and North Korea - with both inclination towards and prior expereince of proliferating WMDs around the world, someday maybe into jehadi hands.
The more you think about it the more it seems to fit their warped agendas nicely. Former paki Gen. Aslam Beg, a self confessed islamist proudly states that he had, back in '90, sought to spread nuke tech to other islamic states (Libya, Iran and somehow North korea too) to enhance the 'collective security' of the islamic world against zionist and western coercion. Fact is, even today, most of Pakistan's bureucracy, military and intelligence agencies seem to share that worldview.
Mollycoddling the current Musharraf regime has helped little as that stute man has been playing US fears about the islamic bomb for more aid dollars to be splurged on a stronger military.
Where does all this lead? And how will the Pak/NK story unfold? You can be sure, Europe will be of no help. It's an established fact that Pak's nuke program is essentially stolen euro components and covert chinese designs.