Morning Frank,

Thoughtful answer. Part of my response is in my response to Tom below, so you might want to read it first.

Characterizing the struggle as being basically religious in nature is one of the assumptions I would challenge. bin Laden's list of demands mentions religion only once, as I recall, in the form of a demand for America to convert to Islam. On the surface that might seem to be both religious and insane, since it ain't gonna happen; but I think I know a bargaining chip when I see one. If we ever got to the negotiating table, that's the demand that he'd magnanimously drop in a heartbeat.

I understand how the phrase "negotiating table" can raise hackles across the spectrum, but I'm not in any way implying surrender or some kind of olive branch. That was just a turn of phrase to suggest that there's something more concrete we can grapple with than the random actions of a crazy person or the relentless hatred of a religious fanatic (the latter being a specialization of the former).

bin Laden's grievances and implied demands are primarily political and economic in nature. I think we're obligated by intellectual honesty to examine them, for clues if nothing else. There's room for legitimate discussion of bin Laden's demand that America stop supporting the foul tyrannies of the Middle East--our principles pull us one way, economic expediency pulls us the other. Why allow ourselves to be held hostage? We could actually resolve that problem by finally biting the bullet and reducing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, making it safe to tell our pet sheiks and kings to take a hike. That one sounds like a possible win-win. (aside: How can it possibly work to talk about bringing democracy to the Middle East out of one side of our mouth, while supporting anti-democratic governments out the other?)

I like a live and let live solution but this requires good walls to make good neighbors and all sides must be satisfied with the status quo. Not likely.

Not likely given the status quo as it is now, but is a new status quo impossible? If the concrete conflicts could be addressed in a way that preserves American interests, would we need to think in terms of cultural victory? (Which is another way of saying "total war" and "unconditional surrender"; are we unnecessarily setting the bar too high and thus risking psyching ourselves out?) Is there actually room for live-and-let-live? Hey, if we didn't need the oil, I'd be fine with building a great big wall around the Middle East and leaving them alone to live as they damn well please. We could make it none of our business.

Another assumption I would challenge is inherent in the use of the term "terrorism". It conditions us to think of the enemy in a certain way and to expect certains patterns of behavior (or randomness). But might not our enemy be called an "insurgency" instead? That's a horse of a slightly different color, and again it's the difference between irrational hatred leading to random violence, versus the cold calculation and coordination of a quasi-military campaign. Fight the enemy we face, not the one we imagine we face.

If we start from the premise that we're facing a rational enemy, we have a chance to deploy our resources more effectively and efficiently. The attacks of 9/11 weren't random, though I've seen little discussion of the precise message conveyed by the attacks: Symbols of American economic, military, and (abortively) political power. From this observation we can infer something about al Qaeda's priorities. Topeka is at far less risk than New York or Washington.

Or, maybe upon sober reflection we'd discover that there aren't any win-win possibilities. Well, then at least we'd really know why we're engaged in an open-ended war that Bush promises will drag on for decades. I don't like being kept in the dark with kindergarten pablum by our leaders, and no citizen of a free society should put up with it.