"Schröder stated that the fight against international terrorism must be won and that this will require the use of force. However, military and police action alone is not sufficient. "The roots of terrorism have to be fought as well. And that includes underdevelopment in the Third World," Schröder said."

Seems like a reasonable position. It's clearly saying that soft power is not enough, but requires the real willingness to use hard power.
It sounds quite hawkish.

Regarding this article: "Fighting Terrorism: Lessons from France:
The French have a long and intimate acquaintance with terror, earned in years of attacks by Algerian independence fighters. Although currently plagued by an Islamist terror threat, French authorities have made their country so inhospitable to terrorist networks that many have relocated to Germany. How did they do it? What lessons can the U.S. learn?"

The US can learn not to evolve into a situation similar to what France faces. We must drain the swamp.

One thing which I should mention. With France, it's status as a world power, it's leaders have a range of options avaliable. But with the US as a superpower this range of options is different. To state the obvious, if 911 had occurred anywhere else in the world [not in America] the response to this attack would probably not be to invade Afghanistan [followed by the invasion Iraq]. The 911 attack *forced* some kind political response from a superpower and this response has a range of possiblities different than what France would choose- the French people might be extremely angry and feel highly moviated to do something, but they probably wouldn't even consider invading Afghanistan, nor attempt to persuade the US to invade the country. Not neccessarily because the French lack the required miltary resources- but mainly they "lack the view" of a superpower [and the past "covert" miltary involvement in Afghanistan:].

And if 911 had only killed a couple hundred people and it had less public impact, then the range of American political choices would also have been more limited.
OR if the US "happenned" to lack the miltary capablity to respond [it wasn't a miltary superpower], we might have responded *instead* by focusing internally in order to build a miltary capable of responding.