Hatfields versus McCoys?

I agree that by waging a war upon Islamic fundamentalism, America and any allies will only supply that cause with more grist with which to lure in recruits.

Yet justice must take place, and war is going to be waged no matter what.

Obviously, some compromise between what America demands and what the rest of the world wants is the best any of us can hope for. America demands a war. America wants to wipe out the Taliban, establish its authority on Afghan soil, and either kill or capture bin Laden. Bush has said that this is non-negotiable, and it is.

But Michael Klare's proposal definitely has merit. I would like to see a leader of the Islamic world - preferably Saudi Arabia, the nation that spawned bin Laden in the first place - take responsibility for its own problem. Arabs should be part of the justice process, should have a hand in bin Laden's fate. It shouldn't be seen simply as Western capitalism versus Islamic fundamentalism. It should be seen as civilization against barbarism.

And it could still be dealt with in that fashion. What may matter more than bin Laden's fate in the end may be *who* decides his fate. I would imagine the Saudis wouldn't want the stigma of bin Laden's blood on their hands. All the more reason to make sure they don't skip out on their responsibilities here. The Islamic world must reject this man and his methods.

Only then can a war on terrorism truly begin to be won.

Hey, it could happen. The Hatfields and McCoys I mentioned, who have carried on the most famous family feud Americans know of, agreed to bury the hatchet. As you say, who would have thought even a handshake between the Palestinians and Israelis would ever be possible?

It is a lot harder to wage peace than war.