And I haven't much of a clue either.

But I've heard the speech, and it was said America would treat those nations who host terrorists the same as terrorists. Bush, and America, must make a statement of some kind before the rest of the world: Attacks against America come at a very heavy price.

So stick to that original line: host nations will be punished.

Afghanistan is the host nation of Bin Laden. So sit tight for a bit while the military planners outline the attack scenarios against Afghanistan. While that's happening, do your utmost to verify Bin Laden's culpability. We all assume he's responsible and the evidence points that way. But if you're going to destroy a country, be as sure as you can be that you've got the right country.

Then make an example out of Afghanistan, since the evidence such as it is does point that way. As someone else here pointed out, the object is not conquest so much as the annihilation of a particular group. Say good-bye to Kabul and the Taliban. They harbored Bin Laden, gave him safe haven. So they must go. End of story.

If some other nation then provides Bin Laden a new home, let them know that they are going to be next.

Repeat as needed.

But the example of Afhanistan should be enough. If not, then the second nation to give him sanctuary should be a case of overkill. Two nations destroyed by America hunting down a terrorist group? Got it - message received.

The message will be definite and clear. No nation will want this pariah. The price is too high.

Equally strong will be the message received by other terrorist groups. America means business.

A worldwide war against terror anywhere and everywhere on the globe is a foolish and ultimately destructive undertaking. This is not something to be tackled with a brute-force approach. Some intelligence must be applied to the overall strategy.

Or 'strategeery,' as some call it. Sorry, couldn't resist. : )