<HTML>this is ultimately a war against terrorism, not against nation states! (But if you disagree with the last point, please do say so.)
-----------
I do disagree (and apologize for the length of the post to follow).
Terrorists are merely the bullets in the gun - the gun held by *S*tates that use the weapon as a means of exerting political pressure upon those *S*tates with which they are in conflict.
I will say nothing regarding the morality of these actions. It is obvious that Terrorists can provide a very useful tool for many of these governments - hence the proliferation of the tactic (I do not even exclude the US from those *S*tates that may have sponsored such pseudo-armies).
The problem is twofold: the weapon has a mind of its own, and its potential for mass destruction and its ultimate power to tople entire nations into chaos has become evidently clear.
Therefore, this weapon must be removed from the arsonal of those *S*tates that have thus far chosen to employ it.
The disarmament process involves both prosecution (I do not mean to imply a stricly legal "prosecution") of the terrorists themselves but, most importantly, punishment and policing of the *S*tates that have made or might be tempted to make use of the terrorist option.
My advocation of *invasion* and *occupation* of those coutries whose governments may bear indirect and/or direct responsibility for the most recent attack stems from three beliefs.
Firstly, *S*tate sponsored terrorism is the *clear and present danger.* Terrorism of the Timothy McVeigh variety will always be with us, and we must rely upon law enforcement and security services to protect us from it as much as possible. So long as Nuclear weapons can be kept out of the hands of the private citizen, it is hoped that its potential for harm will be *relatively* minimal - when compared with what I see as the primary danger.
Secondly, without a *powerful* example being made of at least one *S*tate, there will be an insufficient deterent against future employment of terrorists by States. Currently, sponsoring terrorism can provide *enourmous* benefits to a *S*tate! Therefore, the cost of supporting terrorism must be made (and seen to be) far far greater than any possible gain that might be achieved thereby. It is difficult to imagine *S*tates reaching this conclusion in the absense of an extreme and *deadly* example.
Lastly, the US will suffer an enourmous diplomatic blow if it fails to punish by extreme measures *S*tates that bear responsibility for the massacre of 5500 of its citizens on domestic soil. This is no mere matter of "saving face," as without diplomatic respect, it will not be able to command the cooperation it requires in engineering what is, in effect, a form of universal "disarmament" with regard to the use of terrorist armies for political purposes.
To summarrize....
1. Terrorists/Rogue Armies are powerful and useful tools of States
2. State Sponsored Terrorists/Rogue Armies constitute a clear and present danger to the United States and its interests, as well as those of its Allies many of its adversaries. This danger is so great that the tool must be eliminated as an option for those States currently making use of it.
3. Only the threat of total and complete elimination of the State government and the foriegn occupation of the national land for some years constitutes a sufficiently punative counterweight to the benefits confered upon States by the sponsorship of Terrorists/Rogue Armies. Only this threat will force them to disarm.
5. (Most controversially) Without an example being made of one or two such countries (in the way outlined above), the threat will not be taken seriously. Furthermore, if the US is not seen as powerful enough to conquer those nations responsible for a direct attack upon its soil, its diplomatic efforts are doomed to failure.
All Diplomacy ultimately depends upon a nation's ability to put an army in the field. This principle was formulated theoretically in the days of Metternich and Bismark - it still holds true to this day.
Without a show of force, disarmament will be impossible. Such are the paradoxes of "politics by other means."
ISHMAEL
p.s. I have taken your question seriously and provided you with a serious and respectful answer. You and I have perhaps not been very respectful of one another recently (and we probably will never like each other very much!) but I know you are intelligent, and any show of respect deserves at least the same in return.</HTML>
