I've been reading this thread when I can during read-and-run visits, and it's a good one.

Your thoughts on China are important, because it's big-picture perspective. Part of my frustration with Bush's policies is the knowledge that in the long run we have bigger fish to fry, and engaging in an open-ended struggle against terrorism bodes to permanently distract us from the long-range challenges. China could sneak up on us while we're fixated on terrorism, when we're bankrupt and weary from the endless "long, twilight struggle".

My views on terrorism are routinely mischaracterized, recast into RightWing straw men, so I feel like I need to be sure I'm understood. I've never said we should pursue only negotiation, or only any one thing. Rather, I think we need to avoid dogmatism and rigidity, and pursue every course that might bring victory. That includes war when we can identify a nation as a proper and meaningful opponent, as in Afghanistan, but also has to include paramilitary actions, diplomacy, economic sanctions and incentives, law enforcement-level actions, and on and on.

If an opportunity for negotiation comes up, we shouldn't refuse it, yet I'm sure that Bush would refuse, thus losing a potential opportunity. Granted it's only potential, but success doesn't come from turning up your nose at opportunity. Let's also not forget the divide-and-conquer power of negotation when dealing with such a loosely-organized and fragmented bunch as these terrorists. It's nowhere near as gratifying as a nice bloody war, but nibbling away at terrorism one factioin at a time is one path to victory, among many. You focused on how other parties can use negotiation against us, but I think you're overlooking how negotation can be a powerful tool for us too, if we'd deign to use it.

Another whole category of options we should be pursuing but aren't are those derided by the Right as "law enforcement", as if war is the only answer. It's worth pointing out that Britain didn't have to invade another country in order to round up the alleged suspects in the recently alleged terror plot. It was good police work, plain and simple.

Another path Bush is refusing to pursue is energy independence, to disentangle our economic interests from the Middle East and thus open up a whole new range of options for us. The knowledge that our economy could be brought crashing down by an oil embargo is one hell of an inhibitition, and we need greater freedom of action.

The sum total of pursuing a lot of different strategies will, I believe, eventually bring about your third path (if I understand you correctly), in which cultural equality (I'm not sure what you mean by "equivalence") allows us to coexist with an approximation of peace. We need to encourage more moderation, instead of encouraging more radicalism, so that the moderate Muslims can weigh in sufficiently.

The problem makes the cold war look like a child's game and I am not optimistic.

You speak with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, Frank. I'll bet that around 1950 the Cold War looked immensely complicated and a daunting challenge, but over the course of the next four decades we figured it out. Terrorism is a new threat, but I'm confident that we'll figure out a winning strategy too.